The progressive Lament
Link to Quote: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/title_vi_civil_rights#:~:text=
What%20Is%20Title%20VI%3F%20Title%20VI%20of%20the,any%20program%20or%
20activity%20receiving%20federal%20financial%20assistance.
In case anyone has missed it, Emily Bazelon has just published a story in The Times Magazine, in which she argues that the Bakke decision (438 U.S. 265) only managed to save "affirmative action" temporarily:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/magazine/affirmative-action-supreme-court.html
Affirmative Action was the program pushed by the old liberals to rectify the legacy of racial discrimination. Anybody who lived through the late 70's might remember the debate. On one hand activists wanted to level the playing field and address the historic inequalities caused by racism. On the other hand was the Fourteenth Amendment, which orders that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
The case Bazelon makes begins with an honest admission. that Archibald Cox made an argument based on "diversity" "preparing students to live in a pluralistic society." The problem now is what that word really means to the left: the equalization of results. She also arrives at the realization that most Americans believe in fairness and the concept of fairness/merit is in direct conflict with the idea of "diversity."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/magazine/affirmative-action-supreme-court.html
We now have a Conservative Court and a color blind society. Looking at how well affirmative action has worked out, one might have to concede that it failed and may never have been worth the well-meaning deviation from the Constitution. It may not be that systemic racism was what held down black academic achievement as much as environment & culture. There isn't much question that programs like welfare had a negative effect on the black family. The theMoynihan Report told us that in 1965. Cuture may just be the most important factor. Think of the Asian or Jewish experience in America. Those groups seemed to value education and instilled it in their children. One could argue that it was education that helped those groups overcome discrimination and provided them with upward mobility.
At any rate it appears that progressives like Bazelon and her collegue David Leonhardt are openly conspiring to re-argue Bakke based on class rather than race because it might be a better sell with the American public. When the current Court considers all of the above, the activists will once again be primed & ready.
Tags
Who is online
119 visitors
The question before the house is does an individual’s claim to equal treatment by a state, which is covered by the Constitution prevail over the old liberal goal of providing a level playing field ( or todays progressive demand for an equal result) ?
"Equal treatment" is tricky. What is "equal treatment" of inheritance, for example? Millions for Sam Walton's kids, and zero for the ghetto kids who really, really needs a good start in life?
Can we even imagine a level playing field between these two cases?
We can, but it conflicts with "equal treatment" and would violate the Constitution.
So we should ensure multi-million dollar inheritances for everyone? That would be "equal treatment".
If the ghetto kids have a legal claim to Walton's money, I am sure some lawyer would be jumping all over the case on a contingency basis.
When a person dies, they are allowed to have a legal will disposing of any assets as they see fit.
No, you are preaching equal outcomes.
Please learn the difference between outcomes and opportunities.
"treatment"
duh
I can't understand it for you.
“…outcomes and opportunities.”
If only we would acknowledge that the opportunities afforded some are not afforded all. When we begin to address those systemic disadvantages, only then can we discuss outcomes.
That much is true.
Bob, I didn't choose one or the other. That will be for the Court to decide.
Are you claiming that everyone must be born on the same economic level to have "equal treatment?"
Then you should probably start reading more here, because that is EXACTLY what Bob is advocating for.
We should never discuss outcomes...only opportunity
Nothing in the world stopping someone from leaving money to ghetto kids.
That seems to be the point they just can't grasp.
Agreed.
So let’s also agree to do everything we can to level the playing field.
Bullshit. As American citizens one has the same opportunities as everyone else. One must capitalize on said opportunities and not sit in the house on their respective asses and find a way to take advantage of them instead of buying into the victimhood crap. First thing would be to have extreme disdain for the lot one was given at birth and reject it as the status quo.
Did "affirmative action" do that?
Still wouldn't work.
A small portion of kid's parents would still find their way to the top; some to the middle; and a very large portion to the bottom of the economic ladder.
Not to mention the reset that would be needed for this to happen would wreck the US.
Those with money would flee with all of their assets; and those that couldn't afford to would be left to divide up a very small pot.
So you are all for stealing from the producers to give to the non producers.
Definitely won't create a large section of the population that will sit on their asses doing nothing and making demands to be made forever "whole".
I am sure that will go over well./S
Penalizing success, is completely counterproductive to success.
If we could get our politicians to stop buying multiple mansions and accruing great wealth on a government salary, you might have a point but there you go.
I remember having the discussion with Bob a couple years ago on the subject of inheritance , of course we didnt see eye to eye at that time . Still dont .
If i remember correctly he was in favor of limiting inheritances to the 30-40 thousand dollar range with whatever was left over belonging to the state to do as they saw fit .
Something i later found out came straight from Karl Marx and his writings .
So i did a little math and used the date of Marxs death , and his 30k number , adjusted for the difference of what money was worth then vs what amount would be needed to equal that number , and came up with just over 1 million dollars to equal what 30k would buy and have the same value at the time of his death.
Bazinga.
So let’s call it a million. Bust your ass to make your million and then coast for life right?
Few liberals truly grasp the concept of reward for hard work. Never will likely.
One would have to be a complete dumbass to work their ass off, be away from family, take years off their life, etc just to have it all taken away and redistributed.
A complete dumbass
LOL actually a little more than that , remember i had a $100 k inheritance as a child i didnt get until i was 21 . I was given good financial advice i followed and semi retired in my late 40s since i had reached a number in savings i figured was all i needed .
Also keep in mind all due taxes were paid so the savings was almost tax free except for the unearned income of interest which was also paid .
Also keep in mind i havent even reached the minimum retirement age of 62 i could apply for social security yet......
Why should anyone be expected or required to apportion his/her assets after death according to others' expectations, especially to people s/he don't even know? The keys to raising oneself from poverty are hard work, education, and not expecting a hand-out.
What did Sam Walton's kids produce?
Heirs. Lots and lots of heirs. And last I saw, they are living very productive working, professional lives.
Do you really think Sam Walton would have done differently if inheritance tax was 90%?
I was unaware of the Marx connection... but a million dollar limit seems more than adequate!
What ratio is the "fair share" between federal, state and local death taxes?
I asked a question. Your assumptions are.... interesting...
What systemic disadvantages are you talking about. Minorities at this point in history have all kinds of opportunities.
Most people create their own outcomes....it's largely a matter of intelligence, talent, and persistent effort.
Some seem to think they can avoid the work and heavy lifting, and instead look to a benevolent government to provide for them.
It's never worked anywhere else, and it won't work here either.
So let’s also agree to do everything we can to level the playing field.
You're claiming the playing field in not level. What evidence do you have of that?
Actually yes. He would have offshored most of his money- and bought overseas assets in places that don't kowtow to the US government to leave his family.
Same thing the rich would do now if the inheritance tax was put at 90%.
But that would be unfair. White conservatives believe that after 200+ years of white affirmative action in America, where only whites were allowed to learn to read, vote, own property, get loans, go to college, get certain jobs, build and grow family wealth and a legacy for their descendants, and that when the Civil Rights act was passed it only effectively banned white affirmative action. It didn't rectify the past 200 years, it didn't even say "sorry" to those who were forced to live on the fringes of American society. It merely stopped open blatant white affirmative action, and that's as far as white rightwing conservatives are willing to go.
To actually allow non-white affirmative action for even a few decades is far more than white conservatives can accept, such infuriating injustice of people getting special treatment because of their race is beyond the pale! /s
Fine. Then nationalize their property. If they want to play rough....
So your entire solution to wrong actions is to discriminate now.
Sounds just perfect.
/s
gee, isn't that something!
Imagine taking from some and giving to others without regard to accomplishment, education, work history, etc.
The "New" American Dream:
Work hard at creating something only to see it all given away because some folks can not handle your success.
Exactly, the 14th Amendment is so 19th Century...
Well, Sam Walton started out as a dirt poor kid who became Missouri's youngest Eagle Scout. You can read the rest of his and his family's story here .
When you can't steal the money from the living, steal it from the dead to give to the worthless for votes. Legalized grave robbing, nothing more.
Here is a unique approach, maybe the worthless takes should develop skills and earn their own money?
Isn't the liberal standard always simply:
MORE!!!!
Ahh, it's just the Constitution.
Doesn't mean much to some apparently.
OK. Nationalize as fast as possible.
Of course not, it was written by old, white Eurocentric racists.
Yah! Let's take ALL the money from the rich--that will solve EVERYTHING!
imagine someone offshoring to avoid taxes
According to this, it seems that my wife and I will have to decrease our disbursements upon death to our kids so the government will get even more of our savings and investments.
Imagine politicians from both parties writing tax codes enabling such.
Oh, wait, you don't HAVE to imagine that, as it is fact!
I don't see any tax exemption...
Imagine championing people to only pay what they legally owe, like you get with almost 50% who don't pay, compared to bitching about the rich paying what they legally owe!
No HYPOCRISY there, huh?
LMAO!
What did Sam Walton's kids produce?
It was simpler in the 19th century. Then urban Democrat machines used violent gangs to kidnap voters, feed them alcohol or drugs and force them to vote multiple times dressed in various disguises. Known as “cooping,” this was a common strategy to ensure a win on election day.
Are taxes "theft"?
I am sure that sitting on a board or being chairman means no work to someone unfamiliar with it.
[deleted]
If you're asking that, you didn't read the link I provided in comment 1.1.40.
Actually ... I did. Your link has nothing to do with my question.
Hi afrayedknot, this is why some conservatives keep pointing to ideology, because in its original context-the constitution was written for a society of sef-reliant people. Almost immediately (if not the same 'day') in the same document (the Constitution) there were set-backs, oppressions, and "this 'one' is not addressed to the likes of you: Indian, girls, people of color. But, conservatives like to point to (wink-wink) the high-sounding words in the document. Why? Because if you follow the logic in the by-gone days of its inception, our constitution had its focus and intent on this nation's white majority; they being its only constituent class. Well, shrewdly, today's conservative are holding the constitution's "feet to the fire" and making sure that it lives up to keeping 'them' in the center of its will. Of course, do that indefinitely disadvantages Indians, women, and people of color.
Thus, you, me, we, can see method to the 'madness' coming out of the 'Right'!
[deleted]
How about discussing, "Short-changing"? As in is it morally superior for conservatives to short-change liberals in their pursuits of freedom and liberties for the disadvantaged citizens in our country. Who by the way do participate in the general expansion and development of this country!
So what are you saying (besides a talking point) Just Jim? A corporate "titan" makes hypothetically *200 percent more than his/her line workers; do you really think that a CEO "Titan" works 200 percent harder than the laborers? If so, please share that understanding with us.
* Credit: Moral Politics, How Liberals and Conservatives Think 3rd Edition, By George Lakoff.
That's ridiculous. Rich people 'do' make jobs, but in doing so they 'argue' for paying the lowest wages they can to keep rank and file people 'onboard.' Then, take the largess for themselves and buy an assortment of 'spoils' for themselves. By the way, the laborers spend their monies back into the system in large part for purposes of survival. Can you say that the rich and one percent are merely 'surviving' in the American economy? Of course you can not say this. Thus, the one-percents and the near one-percenters are living "the American Dream" and laborers are living. . . varying degradations of a 'nightmare' which by the way they have taken to be the norm/their lot in life. (Well-trained to do more with less.)
You mentioned the American system would need to be changed. You're right. Of course, conservatives will fight 'like hell' to see that nothing changes and claim it morally right that a hierarchy of the rich taking the spoils and the laborers taking the 'toils' is the natural order for the country.
Taxes are the law.
FOUL! That's a red-herring argument. Throwing politicians under the bus, while letting 'corporate titans' off the hook for their self-interests is morally wrong. Industry is 'stealing' rank and file workers 'blind' and somebody among the conservatives should realize that CEOs/corporation/s which are working to keep laborers just barely keeping up with the ebb and flow of the economy while stashing cash in their self-interests ("highest-end investments) have established a hierarchy which says rich people are better and more useful to society than laborers. That would be a lie. Because laborers are the reason rich people are, well, RICH.
He did not claim they were illegal.
Your question in comment 1.1.52 was ...
My link in comment 1.1.40 gave you the answer. Managing an enormous corporation doesn't leave much time for people to sit around all day drinking beer and eating peanuts.
And then, there's this ...
Speaking only for myself ... I've been fortunate to have the means to help many people, but not as many as the Walton family.
Case closed.
Greg, it is laborers, the rank and file, that make rich/wealthy people so. Flip your 'model' on its head! It is morally wrong to say that rich people are the 'hardest workers' in society, because rich people 'sat' on their wealth (and their asses watching their money make money in varying ways) while laborers 'go to work' and labor to get everything they get in life or some such version of it.
We hear this all the time from conservatives: You can get rich if you work hard enough! It's a myth. One that conservatives like to spread. The truth is for every person that makes it rich in our capitalist system that way it is now, there are scores who will work all their lives and never make ends meet!
If not for that CEO and ownership that started that company, the line workers wouldn't make jack shit at that company. It wouldn't exist without the vision, leadership, drive and finances that were made available to fuel the vision in the early days of heart, soul, and in some cases blood, sweat and tears. Obviously you have never owned a business that you didn't buy and had to start out with a lien on your home, perhaps cars and personal belongings to fulfil a vision so, take your virtue signaling somewhere else. It seems that your cornbread isn't done in the middle.
What did they accomplish?
And you can bet top dollar that the party of not 'bitchin and moanin' have been bitching and moaning all the way through those affirmative action years on the books. Even the article writer acknowledged the 'eye' conservatives have kept on what those. . . blacks (affirmative action folks) have been receiving when he stated:
We now have a Conservative Court and a color blind society. Looking at how well affirmative action has worked out,
one might have to concede that it failed and may never have been worth the well-meaning deviation from the Constitution.
As clearer evidence as you can see that conservatives have been lying in 'wait' and gnashing their teeth to take down affirmative action and now think they have stealthily and handily gotten the SCOTUS 'team' they need developed to rid them of the 'nuisance' to their version of 'America' - for conservatives.
So anytime you read conservatives here saying they don't complain, but are morally superior and earn every thing they get, just remember its mealy-mouthed nonsense. Conservatives, lay in wait, deploy tactics, and set up 'war-rooms' dedicated to developing strategies to 'take down' liberal advances in our culture and politics no matter how much good they are doing and are needed.
Other than the Center for Black Music at the University?
Other than the Alice Walton school of Medicine.
Other than the Crystal Bridges Museum?
Other than Arvest Banks?
Whole health institute.
rest assured Bob , my 3 kids and 5 grand kids wont be getting a cool mil a piece when i pass .
They will get what i got 100k, what they do with it is up to them . they can blow it , or they can build on it .
that still leaves me with a much bigger chunk of change , but consider , i will soon be living off that only , i have to figure and make bets on just how long im going to continue to be alive .
Now there is a portion set aside for my grandkids education but thats only accessed if they choose that path , its used for that or its lost they dont get it , and i will most likely still be alive when they make those choices so i will be making the decision of what counts and doesnt .
If it doesnt get used , its rolled back into the principle base with the rest of it .
In the event of my eventual demise i do have things set up so that my already stated wishes are filled if i cant do so myself . But that still leaves a good chunk of change .
Thought of that as well, anything not left to the kids or grandkids , not used for the grandkids education , gets donated to those living under the poverty line in the US for use for primary education , in Africa .
[deleted]
Don't worry yourself about insults, those are wasted on me. Another talking point, nice to see you've done some 'home-work.' It goes without stating/writing down that companies have founders and "Heads" and that those bosses are worthy when they are indeed so. It is not the point.
Is it morally correct for the CEO to suggest that he or she puts in 200 percent more work/labor than the laborers who FREE up the boss to go out and steer the business' success? Once the business is firmly established, the workers are in place, the income is 'kicking in' what is an appropriate percentage of income for the CEO/founder or CEO (next hire)? Why the 'largess' and the employees 'static' wages?
There is a partnership/hierarchy between the CEO/Officers/Team granted.
The hired laborerswork just as hard as the CEO in the 'marriage' of business owner/laborers.
Early on you implied a bunch of 'freeloaders' were getting away with something and to that I say, you need to rethink/consider the message (talking point).
The CEO has a hell of a lot more risk if the business does anything including facing litigation, bankruptcy, liabilities, and such things. Unfortunate for the workers should the company close down but them losing a job comes nowhere near the risk of ruin the CEO faces.
Again, 200% percent more labor/work/production by CEO than employees?
Companies have insurance coverages and such things and pass on costs in varying ways. A CEO's salary can be found excessive and we are not talking about 'failing' corporations for none of the CEO's salary is going to be recouped to cover a closure. (At least, no more than that CEO wishes it to be paid out of his/her pocket). So just stop.
There is a partnership/hierarchy between the CEO/Officers/Team granted.
The hired laborerswork just as hard as the CEO in the 'marriage' of business owner/laborers.
Early on you implied a bunch of 'freeloaders' were getting away with something and to that I say, you need to rethink/consider the message (talking point). The fact is, those "victims" you are complaining about speaking up would not make what it is they 'get' if they did to speak up and ASK/DEMAND/UNIONIZE/BOYCOTT/STRIKE against their 'masters.'
Way to completely miss the point, not surprising. Taxes for military, CDC etc. good, taxes for worthless takers, BS. no free phone, Get a job.
What difference does it make?
Who is short changing your pursuits of freedom and liberty, CB? What freedoms are you being denied?
Easily.
Are you seriously asking whether or not Brian Moynahan is twice as important to Bank of America than the teller at my local branch?
Seriously? That's all?
They got about 200 fucking billion dollars.
Why would this reassure me?
The employee risks everything every day. The CEO risks being a little less rich.
Are you caricaturing?
Is there something to justify their head-start?
The question is moot. If conservatives and some conservatives do not know what political/social/culture 'wars' they are administering, promoting, supporting, and relentlessly strategizing about. . . then, a better question would be: Why do conservatives think conservative policies are morally superior and liberal policies are morally inferior?
Are you seriously asking me to make a comparison between a CEO/head of a company and a single wage earner? Think about it. I am comparing income classes: Is the CEO class working 200-300% (upward) harder than the laborer class in their respective jobs?
The point being discussed is this: The worker is worthy of his/her hire. Perhaps the case can be made using the 300 percent increases CEO's have been seen giving themselves in recent years. Do CEO's do 200-300 percent more work/labor/production than their employees? (HINT: It is the employees which make money for the CEO's through their labors.)
Conservatives don't look at it that way. Therefore, the point is missed: *The poor create profit for the rich. And from profit CEOs create (jobs, etceteras). It is time to reframe the employee/boss discussion.
* Credit: Moral Politics, How Liberals and Conservatives Think 3rd Edition, By George Lakoff.
Depends on who you talk to I guess. I refer to the IRS as the Income Removal Service. Some think the IRS steals money.
Like all of Marx's idea's it was a bad one.
So i did a little math and used the date of Marxs death , and his 30k number , adjusted for the difference of what money was worth then vs what amount would be needed to equal that number , and came up with just over 1 million dollars to equal what 30k would buy and have the same value at the time of his death.
Probably less than what a mule and 40 acres would have grown to after many generations.
Irrelevant.
I’m for freedom of choice not forced servitude.
Should be Sam’s choice not a spend happy government or other hateful, jealous citizens.
"Disadvantaged" how?
Bottom line is that what some do not get or want to realize is that a persons private wealth is their own and what they choose to do with it when they pass is entirely their own business whether they give it to their loved ones or their favorite charities. I personally do not care what is done with it and how it is disbursed and it does not concern me. Some people whining because they did not deserve or get a piece of it is totally ridiculous to me!
Reminds me of small childing whining because Billy's piece of cake is bigger than mine.
Yep.
What nonsense or should I say rubbish or outright lies.
LOL. They never do Bob. He acts like he's teaching us something.
No, he's projecting, deflecting, and denying.
NOTHING
Obviously you are wrong, The progressives are entitled to everything you earned in life and in death, They need that money to pay off their voters and the slaves they imported because they were too lazy or stupid to do the work themselves.
No. OTOH, I think there's room - lots of room - between "same economic level" and "billionaire/pauper".
Don't have to imagine it. Corporations do it all of the time.
So do the rich- just ask the Clintons.
Whitewater!
Russian collusion!
Ranch Water!
Well, let's just start with the LGBTQ community, when/why are some conservatives going to leave (advantage) drag queens by ending the policies of singling them out for repression, stigmatization, and bullying by non-PC "patriots"? I feel pretty sure that is never, at least up to right this instance.
That's just the tip of the iceberg! There are many others.
Why should it require justification, and to whom?
I'm sure you'd like to pretend so. Yet you are here yet again making outrageous and ridiculous accusations against this group of supposed villains and yet again you cannot seem to identify a single one of these people in real life. For all of the evil they supposedly inflict upon the world, they are as elusive as a Chupacabra with ninja training
The CEO is a single-wage earner, so yes.
Since when does that matter? Do we pay surgeons the same as the hospital janitors? No? Why do you suppose that is? Or for the socialists... does the 60-year-old factory worker with 40 years of experience make the same as the 18-year-old in his first month? No?
Nobody who understands concepts like "competence" and "skill" looks at it that way.
If some conservatives are going to 'pal around' with the republican party blindly and 'hope for the best' for themselves while screwing up the lives of others, then YOU ought to know what the republican party is up to politically. I ain't your back-up research team!
If some conservatives don't know what liberties and freedoms that republicans are diligently arguing over trying to turn into policy on a daily basis, then YOU should go ask wait for it . . . the Republican Party, your fellow conservative leaders, or your local libertarian 'chapter,' because it is not my duty to keep up with which offshoot of the conservatives you vote.
The question is moot. Because if you don't know - you have some work to do. You might find that you are supporting the wrong political party if you invest the time to inform yourself! But, you won't get me to digress and write varying length comment/s about it (for your benefit)!
Now, mock that! I don't care.
Right. I guess it depends on one man's perspective. Next you will tell me you don't get the "master" and "slave" . . . okay, "servant" relationship between employer and employee, because they are the same. (Still, not the point, but why deal with the point anyway?)
Try the Clinton Foundation.
Or do you really think all of those exotic cars and beach houses are in the US?
Whitewater!
Kindly do not falsely attribute quotes to me.
No. It doesn't. The CEO is a single wage earner. I'm not sure how that's in question.
Perhaps if you would actually make a point instead of stating cryptic nonsense and relying on other people to guess, you might be more successful.
Why would I attribute a quote of mine to you? And since you knew or should have known it was obviously mine then you should have asked your conscious mind why is he quoting HIMSELF at this time to me? Because, you ignored, dismissed, left the question out/off of your response. That's why.
And again, you did not answer it. But that's okay. I don't expect much from some conservatives beyond valueless 'filler' and 'sparring' about trivialities. There is not much to process from people who simply want to take-over and dominate the whole of our society, while not being told where/when/how they are wrong-headed to think that kind of thing will work out!
I'm done with semantics and a lack of nuance coming from you with you .
I don't need to be "successful" when the term is framed by some conservatives! Who gives a shit (anymore) what uncompromising conservatives of American society wish to be/see as successful on their terms?
Of course, some conservatives can't be bothered to be open-minded or even 'stretched' in open discussion. Just. . . ' lay there '. . some conservatives let the liberals do 99.99 percent of the intercourse .
* I have been too busy to sit and read this link provided. However, if you find something that speaks to 'your' counternarrative, 'do' let me know.
I don't know, but you did. Perhaps you should ask yourself.
Why should I have to guess what you're trying to say?
Dismissed. It's a stupid question with an answer that should be obvious even to you. It's the same reason liberals think liberal policies are morally superior and conservative policies are morally inferior.
It must be wonderfully liberating to blame every problem you've ever had on people you've never met. What a brilliant way to avoid any accountability for your own actions (or lack thereof).
Yet you never seem to pass up the chance to demand "successful" people pay more of your bills.
Er, a 'lazy' reply. You simply inverted the question and called it a 'response.' Liberals want more freedoms for everybody, and we remark in varying ways everyday here in comments and through articles how selective and opinionated some conservatives are in proposing who can be free and enjoy liberties without conservative approval and nitpicking at the core of those liberties and freedoms.
Well, you know, Jack_Tx - some conservatives get their wealth by any means necessary (Machiavellian hook or crook); why can't everybody else get it through the system? /s
I'm sorry no liberal can meet 'exactly' standards of (MAGAn) conservatism; but that is not the standard to which liberals can adhere! So you can keep considering liberals the scum of the U.S. . . and, I will keep pointing out that some conservative do so.
Yep, by any means necessary. Like using fortitude and hard work.
Traits sorely missing in many folks today
You know at this point, some conservatives just come off sounding like gripers. What fortitude and hard work does it take just to show up and every 'trun' demonize other people?
BTW, are you really insinuating 95 million liberals are not working in this country and some conservatives are the only hard working people here?!!! Be clear will your criticism/s and we won't have to ask!
Exactly, liberals want less regulation, less legal restrictions, more freedom of speech, more limits on the power of government and less community norms for greater individual freedom.
Give up republican "culture wars" and "big" government could attrition (shrink naturally) on its own accord. Otherwise, no liberal worth his/her 'salt' should just concede to conservative/libertarian wishes for moral superiority sake alone! Conservatives (libertarians) are not morally superior to liberals, Drinker!
Are you the spokesmodel for liberalism now? I did not know...
I’m sure some do but that is really the domain of a liberal. Whining about this, bitching about that, getting emotional over every little perceived slight.
Lol, Seems like you’re the one hard wired to demonize conservatives. Full time here on NT.
Jumping posts I see. I thought that one was finished but I guess you want to keep it going. Unfortunately what you’re trying to insinuate here is also way off. Use rudimentary comprehension and you won’t be confused.
That said my first post in that thread was crystal clear what my intent was. So were follow on posts. You’ve put them through your liberal scrambler so that might be where you’re getting confused. Read them again and get back to me if you are still confused. As always, I’ll be glad to clear up any confusion but I really do hate wasting bandwidth on something that should already be understood.
As usual strolling these threads can become an exercise in itself (of futility) to locate an exacting comment. I am sure you can answer the question without using your 'scrambler' - how about going for it? Consider it a thread refresh, man.
So, my correcting my 'error' and realization of a hasty conclusion publicly some how set you up as 'superior'? How come you can not accept my admission as not wasting your time, not waiting days to respond, falling silent, or 'driving on by'?
My hastiness simply means I am human (which I knew already), and not a 'demon' or troll. It does not give you license to invalidate everything I have written; beyond the hasty conclusion, itself.
So why the nastiness?
I doubt it.
I’m not in to culture was.
I am pretty sure your party of choice (republican party) is up to its eyeballs in culture wars.
Party of choice? I voted mostly Dem in 2020 and 2022.
That's the purview of some sanctimonious individuals on the liberal left these days.
Hey man, I speak and write the kings English so don’t be intellectually lazy. Go back and read it again. Take responsibility for yourself.
Nastiness? That only your perception issue. I had let it go when I could have keep hammering on it. You’re the one who kept it alive and going.
Many here, including many of your friends on the left would have keep hammering. You know, like you and Pat did when you thought I had made an error. Jumping in with both feet with “nastiness” as you say.
If you don’t want to talk about it. Stop talking about it.
I’m surprised that you didn’t recognize the obvious sarcasm.
Well, that's nice. Because republicans don't make sense in targeting good people for bad treatment and demonization perpetually. And I am not writing that to be partisan; it is a fact that republicans won't leave certain groups alone across the history of this country!
Man! You want to write about intellectual laziness, when the question at least is a,
A. Yes.
B. No.
Or, at best a sentence of your choice-long or short. But, you know what? It does not matter, because this is a "make it plain" indicator of what I have been writing all along about some conservatives. I expect nothing and am not surprised when nothing returns.
Might as well, for all the good its doing. /s
It was superior to the question it answered.
Riiiiight. I'm sure you've convinced yourself of that utterly. Yet you never seem to be able to identify freedom you don't already have or a freedom someone is trying to take away from you. You have clumsily dodged the question for years.
Meanwhile, the article immediately above this one on the feed expresses the desire of liberals to limit other people's rights (specifically gun rights, in that instance).
On this very seed you have expressed your disgust with the right of high earners to keep their money.
The fact is that liberals only want people to have the "freedoms" of which they approve.
So do some liberals.
Hardly anybody can, and nobody should try. But they can't meet the standards of the Church of Leftist Politics, either. That's why both sets of extremists piss everybody else off.
You seem to be the expert in that arena, so do tell.
And we sit here and let them do it... s/
Always amazes me that the loudest most extreme voices get all the attention.
That part doesn't amaze me. Most extreme = most clickbait, so that's always going to be the case.
What disappoints me is the number of people who fail to recognize that the loud extremists are fringe element whackjobs that do not align with the mainstream of the thing they claim to represent.
Jack, actually we're done here. I won't cater to your bombast. We're not having a discussion; we are just passing crap back and forth. Time out.
As for my freedoms, well nobody is treating me badly, but I live in a state where that kind of shit is suspect and well only happens as an exception. Thankfully. Why? Because it frees me up to not ignore, but to talk (and aid in any way I can) what the hell is going on in other states where conservatives, yeah I repeat, conservatives are meddling and stealing the rights of their own children, the next generation away, just because some conservatives are narrow-minded and imagine themselves to be morally superior to liberals—they are not!
So apparently this 'talk' is a big waste of time. Let's not do it anymore! How about that.
Well, now that you've gotten that off your 'docket' let's move on.
5.1.8. If you can 'explain away' what is happening in Jackson, Mississippi in this article, it would be a nice turn in discussion. Or will you take a pass back to just rhetorical bull Shit and bombast? It could be meaningful or will I 'get' what I have come to expect for 'years' now from conservatives-just more effortless political 'combat'?
I am not an extremist. And do not bother with that tired old trope: if I've got to state it then it is so. I state it outloud because I won't let you have the satisfaction of trying to brand me with it. Extremists are a big problem. Now, conservatives how about doing something about yours and let us do something about our (extremists).
We, liberals, will push to be left alone from the 'exacting' worldview of conservatives, if you interpret that to mean we are bad people doing you harm because we won't appease y'all—tough $hit. We don't owe conservatives the ability to make us conservatives. We are not you and we won't pretend to be conservative, any longer, any way just because of whataboutisms.
Amazing is MAGA think Biden is a radical yet Don Trump is acceptable to be President of the United States of America,
Again!
How about showing us some TRUE (not your feelings) on how Trump was a radical.
“…how Trump was a radical.”
….less a radical than only so willing to expose himself for his political, personal advantage. He is as transparent as can be…self-motivated, self-serving and willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus should he ever be criticized or crossed. Presidential material? That has been determined twice, for better or for worse based on the base…
Three on a match…
Jackson Mississippi, highest crime rate in the country, police force is 25% short officers, unreliable water supply, failing school system. These problems are decades in the making. Do you prefer to allow the Black, Dem government to remain on there current trajectory instead?
[deleted]
So the governor gets to initiate a takeover of the city and take care of his own constituents by pretending the 'animals' can keep the 'asylum'? Please answer. And by the way, you certainly know how these matters work around here: You stated a statistic-provide a link so we can verify accuracy, dates, and numbers!
For the record, let's be clear, when problems surface with crime and etceteras in the white community of conservative-led states; blacks and liberals do not get to initiate proceedings to leave those areas/cities/counties to their own devices and DIVIDE the people through state legislatures and governors.
That you will not see how morally 'bankrupt' such activity is that is being brought forth by the state, and that it only deepens the chasm between city and state governance (Jackson, Mississippi is the state capital) demonstrates blind partisanship.
For the record, those blacks in Jackson, Mississippi, who are behaving like losers and committing crimes need to be brought up on charges and where appropriate jailed and put in prison. The problem can be solved somehow.
The problem can not be mitigated or repaired by establishing 'dual' systems of policing in one municipality. (Aka: "Double standard.")
This is a Mississippi House of Representatives passed bill to expand the Capital Complex Improvement District. It hasn't hone to the State Senate or Governor yet. If approved, the CCID would be 55% Black. 3 of the 8 members if the CCID are Black, Uncle Toms/Aunt Jemima’s?
Again, should the state leave Jackson to its current trajectory? Please answer.
There are more than 2,000 open cases in Hinds County. As part of the initiative, the Legislature approved millions of dollars in three separate appropriations bills for additional staff at the District Attorney’s office, new special temporary judges appointed by the Mississippi Supreme Court, and public defenders to assist in the judicial process.
Did you get tired of the conversation and topic, CB?
Quite sad commentary on Jackson, Mississippi. Quite sad and those making it sad through repeat violence in the city should be ashamed and do better!
I will let Jacksonian leaders speak for themselves (above). I wanted to make the comment shorter but could not without leaving one 'voice' or the other short.
Nope. Your attempt to change the narrative to what crime exist in Jackson, MS away from the making of a separate city authority not under the control of proper and "traditional" city elected officials, does create the usual frustrating 'situation.' The governor of the "great" state of Mississippi should expend his energies UNITING and developing the city where his governor's mansion is. That in the course of time, he is going to assent to his party political wishes (is not his own too) by signing this bill when it arrives at his desk says it all about Mississippi being up to its own tricks again!
Big talk about UNITY that does not pan out when the chips are down and the pretexts to DIVIDE/CONQUER come calling. The republicans are planning to establish a double standard in Jackson, Mississippi-plain and simple-no amount of crime could divide that city under its white leadership, but of course these are black liberals and conservatives don't have to respect their authority!
Eventually, this may have to resolve itself under constitutional law relative to separate but equal treatment under the law. But, therein the plot thickens: Conservatives 'see' from a great distance- a majority conservative supreme court (where being partisan as a court is just idiotic). .
Riiiiight. Only yours is allowed.
Why do you believe your situation to be the exception?
When is the last time you actually visited one of these other states?
What rights, specifically?
Whose rights would be violated by the proposed action?
Jackson is one of the worst cities in America. It hardly seems like state intervention could be anything but beneficial.
What rights do conservatives WISH homosexuals to have and will assist them in achieving and maintaining? Can you say the same for the republican party's wish to see homosexuals treated equally under red-state politics? Start there, please.
In your opinion, and in the republican party should all citizens of Texas and this nation be proper heterosexuals, when of age married to one woman or man, for life?
What does the acronym WISH mean?
I’ve changed nothing and you’ve neither answered my question nor cited any sources. CB business as usual.
I’m sure that they are grateful that you aren’t trying to speak for them.
So you vouch for what the republican house, soon to be followed likely by the republican senate, and the republican governor? There are other worse cities and likely several or more of them are in red-states, but it is not my norm to be interested in just being 'nasty' to talk about cities in such fashion. Even if Jackson, MS was not facing its own rocky ordeal right now.
If the 'reverse' political structure and policy 'prescription' was offered by a democratic party House, Senate, and Governor. . . would you call dividing the city (making the problem worse) 'beneficial'?
I will let you voice your reply to the above question (if you have one).
So I can only assume that you favor status quo.
Maybe not. But you sure believe a lot of what they tell you to.
What do you intend to "do" about yours?
Have you tried just "leaving them alone"?
You know... paying your own bills, solving your own problems, minding your own business, living your own life .... as opposed to raising their taxes, blaming them for your problems, demanding they change their vocabulary weekly and generally demanding they do what you want?
I'm not sure I can speak for 80 million people. All of the conservatives I know support marriage equality. I'm sure there are some who do not, but that's one of those fringe/extremist views we were discussing earlier.
To my knowledge, they are treated equally.
The people of Mississippi have already done that. You see... in America we have this thing called "voting".
I've been there recently. It's a complete shithole.
It's damned near impossible to make it worse, no matter who intervenes.
Don't be self-absorbed. I am here as you can read and see.
Riiight. You got your 'smarts' and sophistication of worldly matter and politics through divine sources, eh? Nobody tells you nothing at all. What a crock of $hit. Even worse, it's a myth told on the right! Like every 'good' piece of propaganda: It forms its power through repeat telling. Theretofore, I am pretty sure you will tell it more. Talking points and jingoisms galore is all it is.
Please. All the conservatives you know: means nothing to this room. Who cares about the "conservatives you know" - talk about what's published that you should be able to read here and about in the real world.
I detect you are being disingenuous. We're done here. As usual conservatives try to appear morally superior but can't when tasked with direct questioning. Bye man.
Yeah, now you're on 'task' bombasting blacks and liberals while supporting white domination and conservatives. I believe you!
The state is 'straggling' the capital city with its black majority, which is why the white leadership is cordoning itself off from the 'people of color.' It's sad. The $hit some conservatives do to other people. Just monstrously sad.
So I can only assume that you favor status quo.
You still haven’t answered the question as we can read and see.
I gave you the article attached to the comment. That is all I have to 'say.' I am not here to feed your 'appetite' for games. Make it weird somewhere else.
You demand answers to your questions but never provide them yourself. Different rules for different folk.
I’m getting deja vu all over again.
Oh well.
Well said, CB, well said.
Your questions don't always require a direct answer. And if I choose to reply in a different mode than you are "demanding" then you will have to accept what I give-as I accept your rather "gamey" mode of reply all the time. See how that works? Additionally, for conservatives who oftentimes like to talk about not being 'whiny' you conservatives sure like to passionately highlight when conservatives feel slighted by a liberal commenter who does not take monotonous questions as anything more than conversation filler and extraneously cumbersome thread expansion.
For the record, you don't answer every question (and mostly play word games (snark) when you do so) I ask of you.
[deleted]
Please just stop. You're abusing me.
Ooooh! 
[deleted]
A doozy of projection you express there!
Were you attempting to make sense with that comment?
Which is why I said I would not attempt to speak for all conservatives. That said, I very obviously know very many more than you do.
Well... I do. I know them.
I'm sorry.... you imagine that the rampaging bias you read on the internet is "the real world"???
I've said things you find inconvenient, so they must not be true. That's not a liberal stereotype or anything. *eyeroll*
Your posts are becoming increasingly unhinged.
Do you have some inherent objection to correct and clear use of the English language?
Well let's examine the facts, here, shall we? You've cited two exceedingly biased articles about a place you've never seen undergoing a situation you don't begin to understand. You immediately presume racism because you have a well-demonstrated zeal for accusations of racism about anything and everything you don't understand... which is a copious amount of the ongoings of western society.
At this point it will not surprise me if you accuse Nestle of racism because Coffeemate somehow "takes away the rights" of black coffee.
It means that all the conservatives "you know" is an unknown factor I should not rely on it discussion to be a suitable model of conservatives. What you appear not to know is what some in your party are up to in their policies and think-tanks and assortment of institutions. How you THINK you can articulate intelligently what the conservative intelligentsia is 'about' from an isolated place in your own thought processes and not reading, listening, to the talkers and writers within/of/for the party is beyond me or belief! In this world we all learn from others around us-even our enemies who somehow keep us sharp through their questions and/or attacks!
So please do not say such preposterous things as you INFORM yourself without any help from anyone else. We live in communities and we learn from those who have information/data/knowledge we do not possess in order to be efficient and live in a proper reality—not a reality of our own choosing or making.
Besides the usual some conservative 'flare' for hyperbolic insults and assorted comment nonsense which I disregard as par for the course considering those doing the speaker who try hard to appear superior (fail), I presented on this very article several articles where Jacksonian officials have called into the question the Mississippi State Legislature and its governor's plans to section off parts of the municipality in a violation of civil rights and potentially depending on a potential constitutional challenge- a SCOTUS undertaking on a future law based on a concept of separate and unequal.
It's Jacksonians - Liberal and Conservatives - both, who are driving this matter. I suggest you stop trying to bait the messenger and respond to what some conservatives are attempting to do under the pretext of law and order in establishing a conclave for themselves while appearing to want to perceive those citizens of the city outside their 'safe-space' as savages.
NOTE: Yeah, "straggling" was a senior 'moment' in spelling. I meant, "straddling." But, of course, ever one to find fault with liberals and forgetting to be agreeable and overlooking words that can be figured out in context of the sentence-you called it out! I stand in shame for a misspelling 'misdeed.' I accept your observation of my blunder and will strive to be PERFECT ON A COMMENT BOARD WITHOUT BLEMISH from this day forward. /s
What do you recommend the city and state do to start solving Jackson’s many problems?
That is what Mississippi democrats proposed and at least six amendments of seven were given "NO" votes.
Amendments:
| 
| 
[H] Amendment No 1 Adopted {Vote}
| 
[H] Amendment No 1 to Amendment No 1 Lost Voice Vote
| 
[H] Amendment No 2 to Amendment No 1 Lost Voice Vote
| 
[H] Amendment No 3 to Amendment No 1 Lost Voice Vote
| 
[H] Amendment No 4 to Amendment No 1 Lost Voice Vote
| 
[H] Amendment No 5 to Amendment No 1 Lost Voice Vote
| 
[H] Amendment No 6 to Amendment No 1 Lost Voice Vote
| 
[H] Amendment No 7 to Amendment No 1 Lost Voice Vote
| 
[H] Amendment No 8 to Amendment No 1 Adopted Voice Vote
I don't live in Mississippi so I am not fully aware of the political nuances involved there. I enter in where it is evidenced that a racial DIVIDE is being driven forward my the Mississippi Legislature and Governor. Dividing the city into 'camps' does more harm than good experience has shown us in the past.
I take a 'swing' at the situation and recommend the governor/legislature should listen and involve ideas and proposals from the Jackson mayor and city council-representatives locally- and build a/the solution through team-work and cooperative politics: Republican and Democrats compromising to end ignorant/shameful violence in the city proper as a whole.
Yes, so what do you think of their House Proposal (yesterday you could it the Governor’s), what do you think of the proposed Amendments , do you have any of you own thoughts on fixing Jackson?
Why would I have thoughts of fixing Jackson, Mississippi? What part of,
"I don't live in Mississippi so I am not fully aware of the political nuances involved there. I enter in where it is evidenced that a racial DIVIDE is being driven forward my the Mississippi Legislature and Governor. Dividing the city into 'camps' does more harm than good experience has shown us in the past."
. . . is causing a lack of understanding for you? Mississippians, black and white and polka-dotted need to collaborate to solve problems. The problem has a racial angle to it and that is what is of interest to the nation and especially people of color, and Whites as well!
I see this as a continuation of the state republican apparatus working to shutdown liberals in the capital city of Jackson, or to make them even more impotent and ineffectual in leadership roles and that is morally inferior conduct from the state legislature and its leadership-Governor Reeves. (He is on record saying negative words about Jackson and its leadership, so why wouldn't he go along with his party?) It is highly unlikely that the legislature would pass a bill and not have 'ran it pass' a republican senate and a republican governor ahead of doing so. Highly improbable.
Why do you then have embraced the criticism of others on a proposal to begin addressing the needs of Jackson?
Apparently Perrie agreed, it’s confusing.
Do you deny the actions of the urban democratic machine then?
Jackson, Mississippi has been under a variety of consent degrees-past and present and as if to not have learned anything from having the federal government shadowing state law and policies in specific cases, they attempt this. What "criticisms of others" are you trying to make a distinction out of from any other set of discussions which happen throughout here? (Rhetorical.)
If this kind of treatment of a municipality is left to stand it won't take long for other red state legislatures to pull a Marjorie Taylor-Greenest let red-states and blue state 'divorce' and control themselves separately and apart. That is not unity; it's division.
Now, do you support division of the states, and division inside cities based on politics, Drinker 'ry? I wish to know what you think about it.
Exactly! All those liberal urban elites have made Mississippi the poorest unhealthiest least educated state in the nation!
One might almost think that we're dealing with a far right cabal here.
No, if you knew your American history, you would know that the agrarian, slave model economy was doomed to collapse after the Civil War.
No, I don’t support the division of our states. I also don’t support letting Jackson continue meandering away from supporting their citizens. Now, again I’ve answered your questions while you’ve never answered mine about your thoughts on Jackson’s future.
The Civil War ended one hundred fifty eight years ago...
Bullshit!
Liberals want more regulation on the corporate users and abusers.
You seem to be confusing liberals with libertarians.
Not just cooperate users.
I’m sorry that my sarcasm wasn’t self evident to you.
Hence my repeated statements that I do not speak for all conservatives. Honestly, do you follow along at all?
I voted for Biden.
Afraid of someone infringing on your monopoly?
Your community appears to have no conservatives. If you knew any, it's unlikely you would brainlessly vilify so many people so readily. As far as learning goes, you have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated staunch determination against actually importing any information that might change your thought process, so I'm not sure your statement is wholly accurate.
You presented exceedingly slanted articles that confirm your existing bias. There are undoubtedly positive and negative aspects to any such proposal, but to nobody's surprise, your sources simply emphasize racism.
IF such a plan is actually enacted, which appears far from certain, the courts will decide whether or not it violates the Constitution.
Yes. And they'll work it out. Self-governance is a wonderful thing.
That is what happens when you are nearly always insincere...
If so, it should have even been more obvious, no matter how casual the observer, that my comment was sarcastic.
Sincerely yours,
DOTW
Some find the comment as abusive, others as taunting, you see it as projection and I find it an NT observable fact.
What I see above is a couple of bullies punching down...
I might be an inch or two taller than average but I don't know that I'm taller than you, or did you mean something else when you said that your looking up?
What did I say that strikes you as bullying?
Is it satire or just contrived contrarianism?
Seems to be the only way to go when any sense of reason is summarily dismissed in questioning any and every response.
Easily ignored.
Reduced to babbling? Pick on someone your own size...
Finding one weaker and ganging up is textbook bullying!
What were you unable to understand?
Again, physically I'm not big, or do you mean intellectually?
Yes, until they want to be taken seriously...
Fuck Off!
I fuck on, not off, but you do you.
Huh?
“…or do you mean intellectually?”
….you have your moments, sir…but more and more often they fall into the intellectually lazy camp…in accepting the unacceptable, in denying the undeniable, and in lack of substance, simply attempting to push buttons.
Take me as I am or not,
You decide which is right
And which is an illusion
Another question?
Please, just how much time and effort do any of us put into NT comments?
Exactly.
I choose to never interact with malignant narcissists IRL...
Some live for it. Others live to vote it up.
Though we will never see eye to eye, I appreciate your comments and your thick skin.
Peace to you and yours…would hope we could actually share a drink should our paths ever cross.
Good for you JBB, keep your real life separate.
I would love to share a drink with you. Please let me know if you are ever in the DC area. I’m sorry, but I forgot what area you live in.
Recently returned home in retirement from AZ to Colorado congressional district 3. The beautiful western slope.
A whole other story, so the first round will be on me, just to get us started.
My answer. I don't have thoughts on Jackson's future (for all the good it would do). Best I can say: Listen to the citizens of the city proper and stop 'bullyin' them or diminishing them because of their color (which NONE OF US can help). And no, skin color bears no evidence of level of intellect or intelligence.
The state's representatives and its governor owes its mayors, plural, the best services it can buy, borrow, and sign into law. You can't do that by cordoning off (making safe zone for one set of people) and leaving out others to the 'elements.'
Thanks CB for admitting that you don't have the answers to the hard questions on Jackson, MS.
Naked retort! Clearly you are here for the political 'combat.' FYI, I am not. Conservatives bother me for just reasons. And I have grown tired of wasting time here with you. If you have gotten your *jollies* - good on you. Now, I can move on. Bye.
I presented the news. I did not write the news. If you have a problem with 'slant' in it: write the media outlets.
Other than that: you can call it whatever you think you can get away with: I will call it news. Of course, conservatives have a point of view. Damn it all, some conservatives hold the opinon they own all of us liberals: I thought you knew! /s
Our 'job' in this country, for the time has come and is now here, is to tell some conservatives to go to HELL; liberals don't have 'daddy issues' for some conservative white males fixated on dominance to fix for us. And we certainly can do without the 'assist' that comes from a place of patronizing, mocking, and deceit.
Now, there is something being hewn out between me and you, yes something is 'growing, widening, a deepening': A chasm.
Exactly, as always, these aren't your own thoughts.
Hard questions and politic prescriptions? People get paid for that. So how about agreeing with me that Mississippi professionals, black/white and liberal/conservative should get into an office building and solve their damn problems of varying types-include racial ones and well as ones that have an appearance of racial division.
They are elected officials on both sides. You and I are some guys on social media probably and possibly discussing why Mississippi' s capital city can't cope! Not one
is changing hands between them/us.
We should strive to be less of a
to each other. Hold that thought: What do you think should happen in Jackson, Missi . . . 
— Aaugh, nevermind.
When I breeze into that city, people gonna stoop and bow. (Hah!)
All them women gonna make me, teach 'em what they don't know how,
I'm goin' to Jackson, you turn-a loose-a my coat.
'Cos I'm goin' to Jackson.
"Goodbye," that's all she wrote.
But they'll laugh at you in Jackson, and I'll be dancin' on a Pony Keg.
They'll lead you 'round town like a scalded hound,
With your tail tucked between your legs,
You're goin' to Jackson, you big-talkin' man.
And I'll be waitin' in Jackson, behind my Jaypan Fan,
Well now, we got married in a fever, hotter than a pepper Sprout,
We've been talkin' 'bout Jackson, ever since the fire went out.
I'm goin' to Jackson, and that's a fact.
Yeah, we're goin' to Jackson, ain't never comin' back.
Well, we got married in a fever, hotter than a pepper sprout'
And we've been talkin' 'bout Jackson, ever since the fire went...
Sorry, I thought it unnecessary as all all adult Americans had heard the Johnny and June Carter version of Jackson.
All you have? Arrogance and talking down to people?
It appears to be all some have on top of arrogance and talking down to others.
Exactly jbb. Happens to me every time I post from certain posters.
Johnny Cash?
Johhny Cash?
Maybe you like Linda better than Johnny.
Really? Meh. You do understand that is a reason to extend credit to other people's work is to distinguish it from your own (so they possibly don't have to come here and ask for it to be taken down due to a lack of respect. Besides, NT has asked repeatedly that we do give proper credit to creators of materials (and copyrights). Case in point: I am an adult and I have never heard the song (even as I write this and look up at your VEVO Johnny Cash - Jackson (Live At San Quention, 1969)!
Actually, when I searched for the lyrics using the top two lines, Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon came up before Johnny Cash. That is why proper attribution is needed to mark who you are drawing. Don't assume we, 'everybody' knows who to give the credit too. Cite it!
Now, let me listen to the late, great, Johnny and June Cash singing, Jackson.
Song has a good beat. Love me some Johnny Cash when I take the time to listen. June sounds great too! Song too short. Jackson, Tennessee is the spot they are talking about I'd bet.
I assure you I was clothed.
Not at all. But if brainless partisan politics is the only fare on offer, you have to remove those weeds to clear room for intelligent conversation.
The wildly erroneous images of conservatives you have created in your mind bother you.
And yet.....
No, you did not. You presented a selected, highly biased sliver of the news that confirmed what you wanted to believe. "The news" is a much larger body of information.
You've stopped making sense.
Yes, there is a widening chasm between us, where I remain committed to the coherent expression of thought and you leave it farther and farther behind. There is another chasm where you repeatedly and increasingly attempt to vilify people by the tens of millions while I remain committed to condemning that as both idiocy and intellectual laziness.
This is abusive on so many levels.
Progressives/Marxists have been trying to equate equity and equality for many years, even though the concepts mean different things.
To progressives/Marxists:
Equity = The same outcome for everyone, regardless of how much effort they've expended or how much they deserve it. (Everyone gets a "participation trophy" even though they only showed up for 1/4 of the practices or rehearsals.)
To the rest of the world:
Equality = Equal opportunity for everyone so all have the tools needed to achieve and earn their highest potential. (See US Constitution)
Very simple.
Gee... it sure is wonderful that rightish people explain leftish things. Kinda like mansplaining.
It's a thankless job, but somebody has to do it!
Defining words and concepts are neither right nor left, Bob. They're based upon facts. Very simple.
Please feel free to maturely debate what I wrote in comment 1.2 .
I think you have received his very best already.
Participation trophy outrage is a made up thing. If you want to compete or you want your kids to compete there are no shortage of outlets and opportunities to do so. I have about 10 nieces and nephews who participated in club sports. It cost the parents money to get them in and there are no participation trophies. You have to be good at your sport or you have to have a mom or dad who are willing to throw their money away. My nieces and nephews who played club sports all played on varsity in high school. A few of them have gotten college scholarships for sports.
Why all this whining about participation trophies? Who actually cares? Does it hurt you to see some little fat kid get a participation trophy?
It takes away the value of that trophy and doesn't teach the value of hard work to achieve something special if he was just there.
Ohhhh ... a distracting tangent that had nothing to do with my comment. Club sports are very different from my sole focus on K-12 town/school sports, John. But, I'll play for just one comment.
We need a new word: progessplaining. When a conservative explains progressive ideas.
Like mansplaining.
that already exists .
it happens every time a conservative does their business in the loo, and just before they flush .
they look at it and send it away .
And the big problem with it is that the state must treat individuals unequally in order to try and achieve such an outcome, which many believe is impossible.
It's interesting: two "conservatives" agreeing on a definition that has very little to do with what is in the dictionary.
Equity:
How taking money from one person and giving it to others, can be considered equity, is the real disingenuous thing here..
But .... progressives love to cherry-pick to push their crackpot ideas. No doubt about that.
One baby is born with nothing; another is born a billionaire. How this can be considered equity, is the real disingenuous thing here..
One baby is born with nothing and becomes a billionaire. Another is born with nothing and becomes a charge of the state.
Keep cherry-picking .....
The dictionary definition has little to do with the woke usage
They were both born........................what they do with it later in life is the key.
Then the kid born with nothing should blame the parents and the one born wealthy should thank theirs
It's called life.
Progressives should learn that and apply it.
Statistically inexistant.
The best indication that a baby will later be wealthy is... being born wealthy. By far the highest correlation.
Seriously, Vic? You're "woke", now?
Isn't that kinda childish?
To point out that "equity" has a woke meaning as opposed to the dictionary definition.
It might be childish to try and deny that fact.
You do know that poverty is often multi-generational, right?
So the poor baby should blame its parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, .... All in the family, right?
.
Its called selfishness. Emphasis on self.
Your posts lead me to believe you would be happier in a socialist society where everyone has the same. Only such a place doesn't exist.
I will leave the terminology of Liberal La La Land to your obvious expertise.
WTF is a progressive/marxist - there is no such thing. Is pure bullshit all you have?
That’s nothing more than a progressive rationalization. The fact remains it can be done, because it is done. By definition, NOT inexistent.
Having worked hard all my life to get where I got, I feel little sorrow for those who were lazy and didn’t work to get ahead.
In the US they are still supported by the largest single budget line item in the US budget. Social spending and it’s many programs. A majority of which is paid for by the wealthy. The poor pay little to nothing into it but accept the majority of the handout.
Yawn ......
The military???
Da da da ...... da da da .....
Nope, wrong again ..... by a lot.
The military is the largest share of discretionary spending.
Social Security is the largest share of mandatory spending.
A closed mouth catches no flies.
And therein lies the difference between the progressive/Marxist dog whistle of "Equity" vs. Equality as defined in the US Constitution and federal codes.
I'm willing to bet some conservatives would love to live in the gilded age before the progressive income tax, eh? Well, sorry, equity showed up and the palatial palaces became less of a sprawl across the country. And poor people could finally afford shoes, socks, warm clothing, a decent meal, and a place to lay their heads!
Wow. Talk about out of touch.
The way conservatives use it, yes, definitely. Of course, if you have a child who thinks the word "poop" means food and keeps asking for "poop" to eat, who is at fault? The dictionary for listing 'poop' as excrement? You know, the actual definition? Or the parents who have decided to indoctrinate their child in some bizarre counter culture universe where up is down, 'poop' is food, 'woke' is crazy, putting unlimited unregulated guns in everyone's hands makes us safer, the planet is 9,000 years old, evolution is a lie, climate change is a hoax, Democrats eat babies and run child sex rings in pizza parlor basements, white Christian conservatives are special and favored by an invisible flying Jew who will one day come and wipe out white Christian conservatives enemies, and then apparently wipe their butts for them?
So yes, clearly the dictionary, where word definitions are collected, wouldn't know what the "real" way, according to home schooled bigots, 'woke' supposedly 'should' be used. Shame on sane and rational folk for understanding the actual definitions of words outside of how the backwards rightwing bizarro universe defines them. /s
When a word doesn't mean what they need, they invent. Dictionary schmictionary...
You must hate the whole progressive tax situation in our country, eh? Though, I am sure that just like everybody in this country in one of several ways (or more) you have benefited from a progressive tax program.
Any word can be a slur if used as a slur...
Yup
I see no relation between the two.
The more people to divide wealth and resources the less there is to go around. Applies from families all the way up.
Too many kids in a family will cause poverty most of the time and it carries on for generations
A really cool animation 'work'!
Sam Walton had a lot of kids. They got a couple hundred (billion) each. Big family, no problem.
I don't understand
isn't it wonderful that a man can start with practically nothing here and wind up as one of the richest men in the world through hard work?
He could afford a lot of kids and so can his kids
... through the hard work of his employees...
The American dream.
oh I am sure they worked hard too.
but he risked his own financial future.
used to be but now too many folks think successful people need to be punished.
The emoticon is interesting and doing a great amount of above average 'work' there. I live it. A good use of colors and lines.
Lord ain't that the truth.
[deleted]
he wasn't born with three eyes either. How fortunate.
I'm sure the people in Burundi really appreciate billionaires
Only problem with that theory. Some are willing to work, some are not.
Those who are not, will never ascend the ladder as they are willing to stand below the first step and shamelessly be taken care of by others. Too lazy to fend for themselves. Not only unwilling to work but hard wired to suck off the teat of the system. Generationally in many cases.
Those who are willing to work pay for those who aren’t. Willingly for the most part until the succubi just get too greedy.
"It's called selfishness."
Or more likely jealousy from the have nots?
some think they are entitled to the fruits of others labor.
Yep.
What's bizarre here is your "discussion" about the small percentage of people in this country who do not work, and yet not distinguish that you are not talking about the working poor. Are you involving the working poor in your 'remarks'? Yes or no?
And about those "system teats" - everybody sucks one (or several) over the course of their lives, including private industry, so don't pretend some conservatives never heard of "pork-barrel" politics which "generationally" got businesses playing the system (and staying in the game) where many if not most of them are today. ("Oink!")
Nah but what is truly bizarre is your consistency at getting issues completely wrong and/or misrepresenting the truth. As of Jan 2023 what you call a “small percentage” is about 95 million. People represented as not wanting a job.
That’s about 46% of the working age population (about 208 million in Jan 2023) age 15-64.
Now you can probably rationalize that many of those are stay at home moms and dads, etc, even though there are fewer and fewer of those each year by choice but what inquiring minds really want to know is, what is a small percentage to you? Your input here is greatly appreciated.
As to the working poor you answered your own question. They are working so therefore they are not unemployed. Easy peazy right?
This gets old having to endlessly explain such things but it appears more hammering is required for this to hit home. If that is even possible. Which I doubt for some here, more each day.
Private industry and businesses pay for those system teats through jobs, taxes, etc. The nonworking people feeding off that teat don’t. They just gobble up resources paid for others. This is not that complicated but I understand when liberal emotion can get in the way of accurate comprehension of such things.
[deleted]
HOUSEHOLD DATA NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED A-38.
Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex [In thousands]
2022
2023
years
years
and over
2022
2023
2022
2023
2022
2023
2022
2023
2022
2023
Total not in the labor force
Do not want a job now ( 1 )
Want a job ( 1 )
Did not search for work in previous year
Searched for work in previous year ( 2 ) ,
but not in past 4 weeks
Not available to work now
Marginally attached
(available to work now)( 3 )
Discouraged over job prospects ( 4 )
Reasons other than discouragement
Family responsibilities
In school or training
Ill health or disability
Other ( 5 )
Footnotes (1) Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job, such as passive jobseekers.
(2) Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched since the end of that job.
(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Look over the data again. It strikes me you have gotten too far 'forward' by a lot in your 'count.' Easy peesy for you to correct if you drop the "million" to "thousands" in your count.
Looks like you're not the one that needed "help with that comprehension" lol.
So you really expect that our system can produce 100 percent employment? Is that the (your) goal? If so, why is the federal reserve hard at work trying to slow down the "red-hot" economy which is "scorching" us with inflation? It strikes me that our system 'envelopes' a certain (number in the thousands/not millons - see above) count of people not working in order to work efficiently.
What say you?
Do explain why you conservatives are so PASSIONATE about achieving what will not benefit the nation as a whole, but as we see hurts the country (through inflation). And we won't even talk about taxes corporations are not paying (just watch the news instead of going with your 'gut' I guess).
You imply that private industry and businesses make jobs; you left off that workers make PROFIT for those companies by their performance. It's synergistic. Until some conservatives come along and try to 'pull it apart' - divide CEOs and workers by overstating one or the other's role and demonization of the work force.
Come on some conservatives I am told you stand with ordinary laborers and those with high school educations over the 'elites,' why is that not clear in your 'answer'?
I could be wrong, but it does appear to me that Sparty On is factually 'off' by a lot! Let's just wail a minute and see if Sparty On can explain this 'away.' Maybe I missed something important.
Don't hold your breath !
Yes you did. A rudimentary understanding of how to read such data tables is required. I find it hard to believe you really don’t understand the concept but once again. I’ll be glad to elucidate
In a table noted in thousands, a data number of 100 is actually 100 thousands or 100,000. So 95,426 is actually 95,426,000. The Jan 2023 number for people noted as not wanting a job.
This is done to compress the table into a more readable format. Writing out such large numbers completely becomes too cumbersome in such tables if not compressed in such a manner. A common practice.
So yeah, you and Pat are way off. Did you really believe the actual number for a country with a working age population of over 207 million was just 95,426? That would be near 100% employment. Crazy.
So really, what do you think the number really is and why? I’ll await your learned corrections to my understanding of the linked BLS data. And please be specific. I know you like specific.
Good luck on that one.
I await the genius that is ..... CB and Pat
I bow to your sparkling intellect
I will come back to this once the BOL Statistics is back up and running. The site is down for now. In any case, the figures are not going anywhere. What is rudimentary is when a chart states it is in thousands (not millions) then it is in thousands-not millions. But, I will look it over again when available, and respond one way or the other. Yes, I did think the number low (considering the news reporting) but then again-I only have to decipher the table.
Apology accepted.
Have a nice day.
I recommend you stop digging your hole any deeper but if you insist, by all means, continue ......
What 'hole'? I don't get embarrassed over some numbers. You might, but your pride has nothing to do with me. I will await the site getting back up and running and report back one way or the other what I 'find.'
That being said, now that I think about it, the table is in thousands with some small numbers in it. Still, I will verify once its open up again.
Lol .... hey, go for it.
[Deleted]
Monthly size of inactive labor force of the United States from January 2021 to January 2023 (in millions, not seasonally adjusted)
U.S. inactive labor force seasonally unadjusted 2021-2023
Okay, since I don't have time to wait on the BLS to get their site back up and running, I will concede to the 100.89 million people inactive labor force number above, which is identical to the BLS you, Sparty On supplied. Good on you.
I thought the numbers was 'low,' and its seems I did not interpret the presentation correctly. Though, the presenters could have been more explicit ("in millions" instead of thousands) for those who would view it in hasty fashion. But, it is what it is. So:
Sparty On, thank you for setting the record straight.
That is what this is about. We all win when we can agree on a detail. Do not misinterpret my agreement as anything other than what it is.
Now, the portion of the page highlighted in red is well, the "rationalization" you expected in your initial comment which put us on this slide path to researching non-working people numbers.
I have other work to get to now and it is distracting me ("nudging" me to get started on it), so I will wait to see what you write back to continue -or end this area of now agreement.
* There is a statistical chart there labeled "in the millions" for viewing, but not for copying by those without a Statistical account.
Certainly can't depend on the left to do it.
Some of them only want to yak about non-existent fascism.
Progressive/marxist
NO SUCH THING
[deleted]
No one in their right mind confuses a participation trophy for more than its stated purposes-especially not children. They have their own internal discussions between themselves as to why adults give them out. Some conservatives, on the other hand, love their hierarchical systems where 'everything' and 'everybody' has to compete even within the team itself.
Equity is what we see currently playing out in Ukraine, to stand back for a moment in look into their situation, as Russia wages war against these people who did nothing to deserve the destruction of their way of life (and all the deaths and materials taken from them this past year. Equity is the United States and European countries helping Ukrainians come up to a greater level of defending themselves against Russia/soldiers/Putin. The outcome is yet undetermined, but the military aid is survival itself.
We now have a Conservative Court and a color blind society.
It would be fantastic if everyone could even agree that a colorblind society is a good thing. But if you claim to treat people of different races equally at a public university you have your job prospects penalized.
Old liberals? Let's not be coy. They were hippie liberals. And the hippie liberals were something entirely different than today's liberals. The hippie liberals didn't want to control anything; they wanted to live their lives as they chose because we're all gonna die anyway. That was the lesson of Vietnam. Don't sweat the small stuff, it don't mean a fucking thing.
(BTW, as a side note, the hippie liberals became the model for changing society. The Taliban in Afghanistan followed that same model although their motivation and goals were very different. Today's BLM is trying to follow the hippie liberal model for change but they've gotten it completely wrong; BLM is more Taliban than hippie liberal.)
Hippie liberals forced Lyndon Johnson to step aside and elected Richard Nixon. Hippie liberals broke the stranglehold conservative Democrats had on the country. Democrats didn't change their party. Hippie liberals walloped the Democratic Party into submission. Hippie liberals are why political power in the United States shifted from the south to the west.
There's no denying that the Negro population had been treated abysmally. Conservative Democrats had deliberately held down and held back the Negro population. Affirmative action was a response to what conservative Democrats had done. But affirmative action was never intended to become an institutional form of control. Affirmative action was not intended as a means for Democrats to use racial politics to reestablish a stranglehold on the country.
Hippie liberals made a big mistake. They shouldn't have changed the Democratic Party. Hippie liberals should have destroyed the Democratic Party and removed it from the political landscape. Now we're back where we started. It's as if the hippie liberals never existed.
Damn hippies ..... 😬
I represent that remark!
Ehhh, the liberal hippies of the late 60s early 70s are a dying breed mostly in their 70s and 80s now and likely either in a old folks home or tooling around the senior center arguing if zepplin , sabbath , blue oyster cult was the greatest band ever ....
Most no longer think of Clapton as god.
SACRILEGE!
Not after his abhorrent racist comments and vaccine nonsense.
As a guitar player he's God.
Sure and Thomas Jefferson was a progressive democrat.
I'm putting you on
I'm on.
Stones, of course
We old hippies are still chasing the white rabbit. Of course, now they're called meds. Go ask Alice.
The Beatles are still the best.
In the 60s and early 70s I was a weekend hippie, a folkie, and some of my good friends and business partners were hippies and folkies, but I don't think I'm quite ready for an old folks home yet. Do you? Does anyone here?
And, there are lots of white rabbits around where I am these days.
SEGER!
CCR for me!
Bayou Country was one of the first albums I bought when a got a stereo for my 15th birthday.
I remember as a teen in 1968-69 having a cassette player with a tape of CCR on the beach in a campground in Traverse City Michigan and I had it on listening. Evidently northern lower Michigan wasn't aware of the band and a few other teens were chuckling at my choice of music. Soon after I am sure they grew into it LOL
CCR and The Band and the greatest concert of all time at Winterland in San Francisco, ''The Last Waltz''. 1976
In the 60s, 70s and 80s the music scene in LA was amazing. One unforgettable jam sessions took place at the Palamino Club, North Hollywood.
Jesse Ed Davis and Taj Mahal were playing and in the door walks, John Fogerty, Bob Dylan and George Harrison, John Trudell was jammin with Jesse Ed.
This is a bootleg video from that session.
Love me some CCR.
A pox upon their house!
[deleted]
Fixed it for you.
[Deleted]
Can't fix anything if there isn't recognition of the problem. The Black population is just as disadvantaged today as they were 50 years ago when civil rights were legislated. Democrats used racial politics to disadvantage the Black population before civil rights and, more importantly, after civil rights.
The Black population is still segregated by disadvantage. Democrats' racial politics imposes a Black culture onto the Black population. The Black population still can't do anything without Democrats' approval. It really doesn't matter if Democrats' racial politics is considered conservative or liberal; the results have been the same.
Why not, todays conservatives are fixated on legislating non issues.
I believe some would agree, but most would not.
Conservatives used racial politics to disadvantage the black population before civil rights and, more importantly, after civil rights.
Pity, your friends argue that the number of black professional and millionaires makes that a false statement, a sweeping gen at best.
The same sweeping partisan nonsense we have come to expect from you.
I am certain that Michael Steele, Tim Scott, Max Frost, Burgess Owens and millions of other middle class black Americans disagree.
There is a link. Educate yourself at your leisure.
What has money got to do with anything? When Barack Obama was President, Democrats created a narrative that Republican opposition to Obama's political ideas and political policies was racist. The narrative was that Republicans opposed Obama because he is Black. Democrats used Obama to reinforce a culture of disadvantage. All Blacks, regardless of wealth, are disadvantaged. The culture of disadvantage really isn't about money. Each and every one of the people highlighted in your link are disadvantaged because they are Black.
All the wealth of the United States could be transferred to the Black population and the Black population will still be disadvantaged.
Victim hood is big business, just ask the race hustlers who have gotten rich off it.
Seems like many people worship at the altar of The Church of the Perpetual Victim
We've seen that in Memphis. Tyre Nichols was the victim of racial disadvantage. And nothing else matters. Prosecutors had to search for token white perpetrators to reinforce that culture of racial disadvantage. As long as one white cop can be charged with something then Tyre Nichols was the victim of racism.
This comment is offensive. Get your 'nuts' somewhere else. And don't ever address such demeaning crap to me again.
Your umbrage won't change reality. The one defining the offence can never be wrong. So, there is an advantage in disadvantage.
Your ridiculous remark won't change reality either. Tyre Nichols was punched and battered ultimately to the point where medical science could not save him. The obvious 'clowns' in the picture were the black officers who did 'it' just to get another black man to 'bow down' to them. They killed him. They will pay the cost for his death as well they should. The White officer involved falls victim to his big mouth where he uttered "incendiary" and unprofessional words caught on tape. (From what I have heard.)
That you can miss the obvious point of police officers, as a group acting badly resulting in a death, apparently the skin color of the officers and their victim not being the issue-then it says something about the provocative nature of your thinking to try to cast it as something other than what it is, bad policing. BTW, we expect 'perps,' criminals, and suspects to act up when it comes to police-we should not expect and accept unprofessionalism from officers-ever.
They did not shoot Tyree Nichols. They beat him to death. Followed up by making an unforgivable breach of trust by not reporting the incident properly! But for the 'surveillance' of a lone camera on a pole the worse of the beating would not have ever been seen or catalogued for later review and corrective actions.
That you think you can use Nichols case as a pretext to write me and say foolishly, diminishing $hit about my people, Black Americans, tells me you don't know who the hell you are writing to or what the hell you are talking about. The "advantage" in disadvantage is the state/s, be they red or blue politically, will continue to pay the cost of killing 'AMERICANS' using official policing channels. I am totally glad, and "nermally" you should be glad too when bad actors casted in the role of good officers are taken off the street where they can no longer maim, torture, batter, and kill.
Instead, here you are Nerm, trying to talk $hit about a group of people who have not taken a damn thing from you or your conservative friends, but only wish to be left to pursue life, liberty, and prosperity apart from some jerks officially interfering and "jamming" their attempts up every other day of the week! And worse.
Standing up for what is right is hard, just being a sadistic type, with macho tendencies is just laying back and going with the flow. We need people who will buck the system for the good it can bring about, not just buck the system because they are loud, obnoxious, and want to use to extend their power over properly disadvantaged peoples, plural.
The repulicans/gop/gqp are the ones you are speaking of.
Your comment #3.2.5 is practically word for word the exact same message Russia's state propagandists have been releasing for the last fifty years to stir racial divide within the United States.
Straight From Playbook! Divide And Conquer! Cut And Paste!
Divide who?
Why does Barack Obama speak differently to a white audience than to a Black audience? Doesn't that behavior divide Blacks and whites? The politics of racial disadvantage cannot avoid dividing Blacks and whites into two populations; one oppressed and the other oppressor according to race.
That is exactly what anti-American propagandists always say!
Not at all. I had an uncle who was a Holocaust survivor and spoke Yiddish to his side of the family because he could. It didn't diminish his relationship to his non Jewish relatives or non Yiddish speakers.
Jewish comedians performing in the Catskills would not necessarily perform the same jokes on the Tonight Show.
Yeah, I would like to see this. Because I did think Nerm's comment was toxic and fatalistic. Had it been said to my face I might have responded impulsively. Thankfully, I could just comment. If it is Russian propaganda, then I can add another 'membrane' onto why I am not feeling them or their leader these days!
Yep, the not so reverend hypocritical race baiter Al Sharpton is the prime example these days..
When I was looking at the pile of crap known as this seeded article, I was looking for the source. Then I realized the seeder wrote it.
He is blaming black "culture" for all the shortfalls of black people. Literally as if 400 years of ceaseless, constant racism had nothing at all to do with it.
It is so absurd as to leave one speechless.
Prior to affirmative action and court ordered consent decrees many towns and cities would not hire black policemen or firemen or the numbers would be so few they were nothing but tokens. The excuse would be they have to "get in line". The same with many jobs , professions and college admissions.
I am willing to re-evaluate the progress of affirmative action and see in which areas it might not be needed anymore, but to just say it is all about "black culture" is ridiculous.
[deleted]
Exactly. He only needs to read the liberal version of history and he, too, can thrive on liberal hogwash!
You couldnt debate your way out of wet tissue paper, so until you start doing something besides feeble "counterpunching" I'm not interested.
Typical weak-ass response when you are unable to debate while hypocritically calling out others' debate skills.
Check.
Look who’s talking. Your “debate” MO is to simply personal attack when others are writing something you don’t agree with.
Weak. Very weak.
Something wrong with that? Seriously. Tell me that’s a bad objective.
Not necessarily. People who make this argument usually do so assuming that everyone else agrees with their ideas of fairness. They somewhat arrogantly presume that their personal understanding of fairness is the objective truth, and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong. But that’s not how this works.
We do NOT have a color blind society. That is an absurd claim. We have a more racially just society than we used to, but in no way is it color blind. There is still much to do.
It has actually been very helpful for a lot of people. Is the argument here that opportunities for people of color were somehow better in the 1960s, before Affirmative Action? Because again, that would be an absurd claim.
Oh no. I’m throwing a flag.
You cannot hold Black America solely responsible for their culture when that culture was shaped by centuries of slavery and white supremacy. Though many groups, like Jews and Asians, have faced discrimination, their history in America does not compare to that of African Americans.
Again, I have a hard time faulting people who seek Justice for historically marginalized populations. And using “marginalized” to describe the black experience in America feels like the understatement of the year.
Do black people have individual agency? Or are they merely passive vessels, whose destiny is controlled by their race and the enmity or paternalism of white people?
Wow. I'll bite: Here is what I think: You are just asking those two questions for the hell of it. The questions are 'leading' question because the response is written across this country's history and current political reality/ities. Moreover, it is easily answered by just looking at the list of 'battles' conservatives wage under a 'false flag' of merit and opposing liberals when one can easily discern that this is happening to liberals. . because, like the robber who was asked why he robs banks and he replied: "Because that is where the money is." If one is going after/against people of color well with the liberals are where you will find us.
Do you not think that history shapes the present? Do you imagine all people start life in the same circumstances? If so, you need to educate yourself a little.
History is not destiny and culture is not immutable. Imagine believing a white person from 1865 shares the same culture with a white person in 2023. Hell, gen z can't even wrap their head around "boomer" culture.
The idea that generations of black people are just too helpless to do anything but hope their white saviors give them recompense for their 6th Great grandfather's sufferings is frankly insulting towards black people.
Do you imagine all people start life in the same circumstances?
Of course not and that's not even somewhat related to what I wrote.
Which means? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
That’s exactly what most social conservatives think and claim. They tell us all the time that America is part of some grand Judeo-Christian culture. Furthermore, they usually argue that we should adhere to the traditions of that culture or . . . something awful will happen.
Oh, I’m sorry. You get a flag, too.
I never said black people were too helpless to do anything. I would say that many of them start at a disadvantage because of the history of black people in America. I would further say they encounter obstacles in life that most white people do not have to overcome. So, the agency you reference above exists, but it is not some magic equalizer.
It is related to what you wrote, as I have just explained. More importantly, it is related to the theme of the article, which ridiculously argues that we live in some kind of color blind society and America’s history of racism is both dead and buried, and no longer can influence anyone’s life.
That's its silly to argue black culture or black people are somehow locked into an immutable culture that is dependent on white people.
hat’s exactly what most social conservatives think and claim.
So? I'm arguing the opposite.
would say that many of them start at a disadvantage because of the history of black people in America
Again, history or dictate outcomes or create genetic victimhood. . Teaching kids that it does, telling them the system is rigged against them becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and is much more poisonous than some magically inherited ''disadvantage" that black people apparently uniquely pass on through the generations. Inherited victimhood is the real danger.
le, which ridiculously argues that we live in some kind of color blind society
There, at least, you are correct. We live in a society where the government discriminates on the basis of race and has become ever more determined to teach kids that their racial identity is their most important characteristic and determines every interaction they will have .
no longer can influence anyone’s life.
Perpetual racism to fight racism will influence lives negatively as long as people push racial determinism.
That you believe arguing people of color are just as capable as white people is "going after/against them" speaks volumes.
Sean wants to completely define the terms of the argument. According to him blacks have "agency" or they dont.
By whose definition, white conservatives ?
The true fact in my opinion is that blacks can both be expected to act with "agency" and also be given a hand up by the larger society that has spent 400 years trying to diminish that agency. It is not necessarily one or the other.
What kills me are the white Christian nationalists who want us to worship at the altar of the founding fathers every word but say when it comes to recognizing racism it was so long ago that it has no meaning to people alive today.
How un self-aware can people get?
Tacos! and JohnRussell: Evidence you can 'hold.'
NOTE: It is likely that our resident conservatives might not click the link to be held accountable for 'reading' it. So I will post the whole of it. Pictures included!
This is 2023 happenings. Now let them tell us to our faces that some conservatives are not whiny, griping, and deceitful folks. Do you see GOVERNOR TATE REEVES' big face 'championing' the conservative south and using his 'face, office, "strength," and influence to pull away from Jackson, Mississippi -the capital city of the state and where the official governor's mansion resides.
Mississippi caught 'red-handed' DIVIDING and making distinctions between black and white or white and black SPACES. Conservatives do you WONDER why blacks who try to assimilate don't trust WHITES who don't and won't 'assimilate' them?
Some conservatives are untruthful. They won't stop being untruthful. Here is a topical news "proof" of their diabolical schemes against black people trying to be successful and viable parts of the community.
Some conservatives move away or use their representation powers to cut themselves off, make an 'island of themselves with their own systems' right in the midst of their fellow citizens with whom they want no part of when they can not be the ones in control of the whole!
5.1. 8. "Raceplain" that one 'away.' Go ahead. Blame black Jacksonians for messing with white Jacksonians and driving them to divide the city (farther).
5.1.8. And you can keep the rhetoric for yourself!
What? What? What? Where are some conservatives with a feckless 'pitch' that white republicans/conservatives are not planning to/intending to/will divide Jackson, Mississippi with it's 80 percent black population?
The silence speaks volumes. Drive on by republicans/conservatives/libertarians but know this, . . . we see you as you 'pass on by.'
Didn't you know? Racism no longer exists since we elected a Black President.
I love it when people who hate progressives use the internet to complain about progressives.
Exactly, we all know that most computer and communication engineers are progressives and after all, Al Gore invented the internet.
“Hate” towards folks with different political views appears to be a progressives problem. Not mine. I don’t hate progressives. I just tend to disagree with them these days. On nearly everything.
Big difference between “disagree” and “hate.”
Yes, I notice you don’t spend your days posting obsessive fantasies about killing people who disagree with you.
Actually I think most people don’t. We just have a few very angry people here on NT who are always trying to poison the punch. One of the real pro’s at that just returned after a long exile.
That’s what happens when you hold so much hate in your heart. Sadly some here live to do just that .... poison the punch.
Most people aren't that emotionally invested in politics. They may tend one direction or the other but they can laugh at their side or admit something their side did. I have a number of friends and family who are Democrats and I'm glad they are my reference point, not online trolls.