Why liberals should never be in power...

Or the French, for that matter.

I hope America never gets so liberalized that we're faced with this situation, though it does seem like we're getting close sometimes.

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" border="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="99%">French Fume Over Proposed Ban on Beards
</td> <td align="right" width="1%"> http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap120.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03/*http://www.ap.org) </td> </tr></tbody> </table> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" border="0" width="420"> <tbody><tr valign="middle"> <td width="40%"> <!-- Yahoo TimeStamp: 1074720811 --> <!-- timestamp 1074720811 48537 secs stale 28800 secs --> Wed Jan 21, 4:33 PM ET
</td> <td width="60%" nowrap="nowrap" align="right"> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr><td width="1%">http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/my/my16.gif</td><td width="99%" nowrap="nowrap"> Add World - AP (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://edit.my.yahoo.com/config/set_news?.add=aprw&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/%3ftmpl=story%26cid=535%26ncid=535%26e=7%26u=/ap/20040121/ap_on_re_eu/france_banishing_beards_2) to My Yahoo!</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody> </table> <!-- TextStart --> By JOCELYN GECKER, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - France's fight to keep religion out of schools has entered new — and some say absurd — territory. Teachers and some religious leaders fumed Wednesday over a government minister's call to ban beards and bandannas from classrooms along with Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses.

<table align="left" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="99%"> <center> <table width="150" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td> <center> http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040122/thumb.par13301220220.france_banishing_beards_par133.jpg (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040122/481/par13301220220)
AP Photo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040122/481/par13301220220) </center>
</td></tr></tbody></table> </center> </td><td width="5">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Muslim leaders were divided, with some denouncing a curb on facial hair as "total delirium." Others said street protests against the planned law had rattled the government and provoked a crackdown.



Le Monde newspaper devoted its front-page cartoon to the subject, showing a teacher inspecting a student's beard with a magnifying glass, as veiled women with big smiles looked on.



The latest twist in France's controversial plan to ban religious symbols from classrooms came Tuesday, when Education Minister Luc Ferry said the planned ban on religious symbols could also cover facial hair and bandannas, sometimes worn as a discreet alternative to the traditional Muslim head scarf.



Ferry made the comments during a parliamentary debate, where lawmakers questioned whether the wording of the bill was tough enough. They asked if the ban should cover "visible" religious symbols, rather than "conspicuous" symbols, as the draft law states.



Ferry said the existing wording would allow for a broader interpretation of the law.



And so, "if a beard is transformed into a religious sign it will fall under the law," Ferry said. Likewise, a bandanna "will be banned, if young girls present it as a religious sign."



This came as a shock to many in France, particularly to teachers who will be at the front line of policing the new law, expected to be in place for the next school year in September. Lawmakers begin debating the bill Feb. 3.



"Beards? Bandannas?" asked Daniel Robin, national secretary of France's largest union for high school teachers. "What next?"



"This exercise has become absurd. Totally absurd," he said in a telephone interview.



How will teachers identify religious facial hair? Would they reprimand a "religious" bandanna but allow it as a fashion statement?



"I don't know how to respond to these questions," said Robin, who added that boys too lazy to shave never were punished in the past. "Beards were never a problem before. Let's not create new problems."



The Education Ministry did not respond to calls asking for clarification of Ferry's remarks.



Ferry declined to speak to reporters as he left a Cabinet meeting Wednesday. Government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope spoke on his behalf, saying only that the new law would be applied "with discretion."



President Jacques Chirac says the law's goal is to protect France's secular underpinnings. However, it also is seen as a way to hold back Islamic fundamentalism in the nation's Muslim community, at an estimated 5 million the largest in Western Europe.



Last weekend, up to 10,000 people — mostly Muslim women in head scarves — marched in Paris to protest the planned law.



The march was organized by the Party of Muslims of France, a small group known for its radical views. The group's president, Mohamed Latreche, called banning of facial hair "total delirium."

<table align="left" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="99%">
</td> <td width="5">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>





"This law has become a farce," he said by telephone. "It's not up to the government to tell us if we can grow beards.

"It proves what we've been saying all along — that this law is anti-Muslim," Latreche said.

Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French council of the Muslim religion, had discouraged Muslims from attending the protest, saying the rally would exacerbate the anti-Muslim climate.

"Now, you see the repercussions," Boubakeur said, adding that a ban on bandannas or beards showed "the government was toughening its position."

"I told people not to demonstrate. I told them they'd scare French people — and this fear would result in France closing the door."

Or the French, for that matter.

I hope America never gets so liberalized that we're faced with this situation, though it does seem like we're getting close sometimes.

France is full of ignorance and prejidice, This isnt liberalism but snubism. This law is uncontituional and violates basic rights and freedoms and would never be passed anywhere else except france.This is what happens when a country is filled with Darunian atheists.

I doubt the law will even be passed. No civilized country would put up with something like this, and all the protests are going to go a long way in convincing France's lawmakers that they would be stupid to pass this law.

Dude, that's pretty f*cked up. (Pardon my French... no pun intended.) This is what happens when seperation of church and state is allowed to go too far.

Yeah, this isn't really liberalism, Weltall... I can see why they would do it and call it liberal but banning stuff like that makes me think more of being reactionary, or paranoid, or scared of other groups, than of liberalism... but you really do have to put it into context first.

France has a lot of African Muslim immigrants. Their numbers keep increasing. The French are nervous, and aren't exactly a people known for their tolerance. Though I will give them that the headscarf thing is a real problem. You may act like headscarves are innocuous but they are not. Just ask the Turks who have been having major problems over headscarves ever since Ataturk banned them in the '20s in an attempt to seperate religion from public life... they are a very religious symbol and stand in place of veils, so seeing them as a symbol of the subjugation of women under men is quite appropriate. Banning them I don't have a big problem with in the context of France where there are more bans of civil liberties than is possible in America (like how many European nations ban video games that are too violent unless they cut it back, something that couldn't happen today here without new legislation that would be very contraversial... or think Britain, when it switched to the Metric System, and how they banned Standard and made it illegal to sell anything in Standard or even to have a Standard scale in your store... that wouldn't happen here...)... they see the headscarves as a threat and act to stop them. They just brought this law way too far and this talk of extending it seems absurd. Beards? Come on... and as for other religious headgear I don't think that Sikh turbans or yarmukles are really in the same category as headscarves... bandannas? Interesting, given that there is talk of Muslim people using them has headscarf replacements, but you really can go too far. What are they going to do, ban anyone from ever wearing headgear in school? Seems a bit absurd to me, and a definite over-reaction...

they are a very religious symbol and stand in place of veils, so seeing them as a symbol of the subjugation of women under men is quite appropriate. Banning them I don't have a big problem with in the context of France where there are more bans of civil liberties than is possible in America

The muslim headscarf is a symbol of modesty for that religion, The Muslim women ware it to please Allah and show that they are modest and morally clean. We cannot claim that the Taliban views are anything like the real Koranic view on woman. This law was made out of ignorance and intolerance of other peoples beliefs and has nothing to do with the seperation of church state and more to do with a way of persecuting the muslim minority.

It's more than just a symbol of modesty, come on. It is a symbol of strong religious faith and of subjugation. Turkey banned them 80 years ago when they were trying to seperate church and state, because they were such a strong religious icon and so hurtful at chances for a truly secular state...

Yes, ignorance and intolerance are a big part of it. But for both sides of this issue, not just the French. Again, France has large minorities and definite problems between them and the French. I've heard of all kinds of bad things going on in French schools... intolerance? Some. But the Muslims seem to be just as bad in return... banning headscarves might help cool things down and lessen some tensions (while admittedly making others worse).

And it's more than just a symbol of modesty.

I think it will make matters worse. Muslims aren't the type of people that like being told 'no'.

Worse on the Muslim side, better on the French?

Expecting majority groups to not dislike minority groups is unrealistic, of course.

It's hardly a liberal move. Chirac's likely just doing it to please the Front National xenophobes and steal votes away from Le Pen and his far-right brethren.

I must say the reactionary in me is quite pleased with the Muslims being told where they can shove it, but if anybody asks, I said it's an evil attack on civil rights and etc.

Yes, calling this "liberal" is quite misguided, as I said. It does have some basis for why they should try it, but still... it is not liberal. You say it's seperation of church and state? In a way, but it's more because of fear and lack of understanding (going both ways), and the fact that the Muslim world is more backward (politically) than the Western one and is more religious -- which is a problem, definitely, in a secular nation like France...

This is what happens when a country is filled with Darunian atheists.


Eat me.

Takes a Bite! :argue:

If that is your perception of liberal, Weltall, it's no wonder you hate liberals so much.

Well, when I look at my own country, I see similar, though (for now) less radical actions taken against the freedom of religion, forcing secular humanism down our throats one spoonful at a time. Some of these are directed at religion in general, some at Christianity in particular.

Such actions offend me, and I sure don't see conservatives doing it. I might be wrong about France, but in America, it's liberals who are attempting to slowly kill religion every chance they get. The title of the post indicates how it applies to America.

It also indicates how we probably should have left France to the Germans. :banana:

For France the people doing this are conservative, not liberal, I'm pretty sure... remember Europe is not strongly religious. They've gotten over it. They are just somewhat religious and the numbers of people that go to church is small... and I'd think that such laws as this, which target some smaller, minority, and mostly immigrant, groups would more be conservative than liberal... I wouldn't think that liberals would usually ban freedom of expression like that... the headscarves? Maybe. Doubtful but maybe. But the rest of that stuff? Doesn't seem it to me, no...

It's targeting everyone. The article mentions Christians, Jews and Muslims.

This latest one is mostly Muslim-oriented though.

Yeah, they target everyone. That is, I think, because they probably think that a law specifically targetted at Muslims would not pass and would be called discriminatory... by making everyone subject to it they probably protect themselves from (legal at least) criticizm. But Muslims are the reason the law exists.

freedom of religion is in important right to be defended even if your a atheist , Countries were that right is denied usually deny alot of other essential rights so if you kill freedom of religion you kill freedom of speech and freedom of choice and you have the soviet union and china as examples of what happens when people dont have the right to believe what they want.
Its true that the goverment shouldnt endorse a religion or impose that on anyone ,but to deny a person his right of practicing his beliefs weither that be having a long beard or waring a Turbin that is his freedom and as long as he doesnt cause harm to any other it is perfectly exceptable.

Well, when I look at my own country, I see similar, though (for now) less radical actions taken against the freedom of religion, forcing secular humanism down our throats one spoonful at a time. Some of these are directed at religion in general, some at Christianity in particular

Er, it's not like anybody is burning down our churches. Our beating on us for practicing our religion, so how hard is it to just forget all of those people wanting a world without religious beliefs? Yeeesh. It's not hard to just IGNORE them.

Banning religion is like banning culture. While they're at it, why not just change their government to communism and call it a day? (/sarcasm)

There is a big difference between banning religion in private or in private places like churches and banning it in public schools!

Er, it's not like anybody is burning down our churches. Our beating on us for practicing our religion, so how hard is it to just forget all of those people wanting a world without religious beliefs? Yeeesh. It's not hard to just IGNORE them.
How can you ignore them? They're in the court systems all the time. They're doing things that go beyond trivial just to bring down faith.

It's not so hard to ignore the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, yet there are screwball athiests filing lawsuits trying to remove those two words. No one is forced to recite the pledge, but they don't even want to hear it. The very act of it being there offends them, so they sue to remove it. Our God is the deity of the world's three major religions, so it's not as though one belief is represented and all others excluded.

These same people fight to ban Christian and Bible Study groups in public school. These groups are by no means mandatory, totally optional, and since most are after school, most kids aren't even exposed to them. Yet, in their relentless pursuit of making sure the extreme minority isn't offended, they have to bastardize the legal system in order to enforce their will over everyone.

Why should I ignore a small, crazy minority of people using the law as a tool to force their secular humanism on a majority that does not want it?

More importantly, Why can't they ignore God if they don't believe in Him?

I think the thing is, world politics are much more complicated than the bipolar vision of Liberalism and Conservatism, especially when you consider each continent's particular issues. Parties generally seen as fiscally conservative are pushing the socially conservative (anti-immigrant) stance in Europe, whereas in America liberal groups are taking over stances historically held by conservative groups (opposition to free trade and foreign intervention, racial discrimination) while maintaining their support of leftist economic policies. This would be fine, except the names don't change, royally fucking up any comparisons you can make between American and European political parties/organizations.

Personally I use a (very approximative) cartesian graph to figure out where parties stand vs. my views, instead of the traditional left-right line. IMHO it makes for a clearer view of the political world. I don't think it can be called biased even though it's focused on a personal value (individual freedom); however, it can be thoroughly useless to someone whose principles are greatly different.

As I said, European Conservatives are quite different from American ones... they aren't highly religious like ours are, for the biggest difference. And yes, they push anti-immigrant legislation... though it's the same here -- it's Pat Buchanan, not Ralph Nader, who wants to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans... but they go farther, actually banning and greatly limiting immigration into their countries. This step seems in line with those limitations so it's definitely a move by conservatives... it's limiting civil liberties, and that isn't usually something liberals support unless there's very good reason. Yes, the fact that this is about religion puts it into a somewhat grey area where you could see some liberals supporting it if given good reason... but still, banning things to supress opinions is more a conservative thing than liberal. Yes, headscarves are a symbol of a more radical kind of Islam than the French are comfterble with, but I don't think banning them will really help there... actually if anything it'll probably just harden Muslim opposition to changing to accept the modern world...

Oh, and you just need to remember that by your standards European Conservatives aren't especially "conservative"... similar with Canadians I think.

whereas in America liberal groups are taking over stances historically held by conservative groups (opposition to free trade and foreign intervention, racial discrimination)

Liberals do not support racial discrimination. Absolutely not.

And before someone starts, Affirmative Action is in no way racial discrimination! But I don't want to argue that again, we've been through that arguement several times now...

At the risk of re-opening an old can of worms, when you give someone preference over another, in any matter, on the basis of skin color, it is racial discrimination. It is the very definition of racial discrimination, and racial discrimination it is, no matter why you think it's right or necessary, and no matter what creative name you give it.

A hundred years ago, it was in reverse. People called it "Jim Crow". And no one denies it was racial discrimination.

Liberals definitely do support and encourage it. They're just very creative at making deceptive names for it. And, of course, blaming it on conservatives.

Once again, in reference to the original topic, I am aware now of the differences between liberals and conservatives on different continents. The point was to show which of the two would like to pursue the same thing in America.

In canada conservatives and liberals are relatively the same as in the U.S ,For example the Alliance party (right wing) was for sending troops and joining the U.S in invading Iraq while the two liberal parties opposed it,But since the Liberals controled the country we did not go into Iraq since we were afraid of what might happen (vietnam masacre) and also thought the war was Imoral. The issue of gay rights is another example all Conservative elected provinces oppose same sex marriage and go with the original definition between a man and a woman ,while you got the Liberals who dont give a shit that they are changing the basic fundamental parts of are constitution.

Once again, in reference to the original topic, I am aware now of the differences between liberals and conservatives on different continents. The point was to show which of the two would like to pursue the same thing in America.

If it was in America... hmm, I don't know. It could be either liberals complaining about religion in schools or conservatives hating the Muslims, you know... I could see either one going down the path of banning headscarves... and going farther, probably too far, like France seems to? I don't know. I'd like to think that people would restrain themselves to the sensible. :)

At the risk of re-opening an old can of worms, when you give someone preference over another, in any matter, on the basis of skin color, it is racial discrimination. It is the very definition of racial discrimination, and racial discrimination it is, no matter why you think it's right or necessary, and no matter what creative name you give it.

A hundred years ago, it was in reverse. People called it "Jim Crow". And no one denies it was racial discrimination.

Comparing Jim Crow to aid programs that try to help the black people recover fromthe hundreds of years of discrimination represented by Jim Crow is totally insane, but exactly the kind of insanity I'd expect from you... totally baseless and without a shred of logic...

Discrimination is when you give one group an advantage over another that it shouldn't have. It isn't discrimination to give things to disadvantaged groups when those things will try to bring them to equality with the main group! It's the opposite of that... discrimination would be NOT having AA!


In canada conservatives and liberals are relatively the same as in the U.S ,For example the Alliance party (right wing) was for sending troops and joining the U.S in invading Iraq while the two liberal parties opposed it,But since the Liberals controled the country we did not go into Iraq since we were afraid of what might happen (vietnam masacre) and also thought the war was Imoral. The issue of gay rights is another example all Conservative elected provinces oppose same sex marriage and go with the original definition between a man and a woman ,while you got the Liberals who dont give a shit that they are changing the basic fundamental parts of are constitution.
__________________

I've read several of articles about Canadian politics of late, and how they are so different from our contentious politics of the last few years... there is a lot more agreement and a lot less tolerance for the extreme polarization we have, and all the parties are (while definitely different) a whole lot closer together than the American parties are. Yes they have differences, I would think they would, but it just isn't on the same level as the American political system now with it's 'probably the most polarized ever' style.

Conservatives are much more mellow in Canada than in the US. A large amount of Tories are in fact "Red Tories" more akin to libertarians than actual conservatives. What you have to watch out for up here are the rabid unionists... the province's been on and off strike recently because the unions don't like how the newly-elected Liberals are cutting funding and otherwise trying to save up money to fix the budget, which the Parti Québecois pretty much savaged. Thus, the Liberals are seen as the evil right-wingers over here. Make sense? Thought not.

Affirmative Action is racial discrimination incarnate. It makes the son pay for the sins of the father, which is ridiculous as of itself; and it puts the people which it's supposed to help to shame by insisting that they need help to make it in life. It's more than racial discrimination, it's outright racism. I don't agree with having others decide who an employer can hire, but if you absolutely must, do it based on income or something that makes sense at all, not skin colour.

Huh? Affirmative Action isn't just because of what people before did, it's because those groups are still quite definitely not equal to the majority... it's not nearly as bad in Canada, obviously, but in the US it's a big issue and Affirmative Action is a great way to try to improve things for a whole lot of people who are severely disadvantaged.

Well, obviously there's a "we did them wrong x hundred years ago and need to fix that" attitude to it. Otherwise why are specific races being targeted, and not just "disadvantaged" people in general?

In general though, the concept just disgusts me because it reeks of paternalism. I swear, if I was black and you said I belonged to a "disadvantaged group", I would smack you square in the jaw.

Yes, there are plenty of black people who aren't disadvantaged. Same with the other groups AA targets, like Native Americans. But those groups on the whole are definitely disadvantaged... not just economically but, I'd say, in their attitudes -- these groups have been behind for so long that a lot of them seem to have given up... this can't solve that problem, but there's only so much the government can do about attitude.

They just give 'em cash. And don't make 'em pay taxes.

When given cash people will likely as not waste it... you need to focus the money.

I think I've done this before but here's a comparison of the Canadian and American Political Parties from left to right

New Democratic Party of Canada - Liberal Party of Canada - Progresive Conservitive Party of Canada / American Democrats(they are about the same) - Canadian Alliance - Republicans

As of yesterday the Progressive Conservitive Pary and the Canadian Alliance no longer exist however and have formed the Conservitve Party of Canada, this new party will most likely be closer to the American Republicans than the Democrats because a large protion of the Progressive Conservatives jumped ship once the merger happened (including a former Prime Minister among other high profile deserters) and are either now independent or have joined the Liberal Party

In addition since the departure of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin becoming the Prime Minister the Liberal Party has taken a shift to the right and now occupy a position much closer to that of the American Democrats than during the Chretien era, now that the last remanents of the Trudeau-Pearson era have left politics.

It is expected that in the next federal election the Liberals will strengthen their majority now since they will be atracting many former PC suporters and for some reason Paul Martin, and anglo from Quebec has more support from fracophones in Quebec then Jean Chretien. While the new conservative party is expected to lose all credibility in eastern and central Canada now due to their more extreme conservative views and the image that they are a regionaly based western party rather than a true national party. The NDP are also expected to make gains as many of the more liberal supporters of the liberal party don't agree with the new more conservative positions of Paul Martin.

Discrimination is when you give one group an advantage over another that it shouldn't have. It isn't discrimination to give things to disadvantaged groups when those things will try to bring them to equality with the main group! It's the opposite of that... discrimination would be NOT having AA!

Not giving them an advantage is discrimination? Eh. Who is to decide who deserves what advantages? Who decides when blacks will finally be equal to whites?

Affirmative action should be totally economic, and have nothing to do with skin color. Since it is ONLY skin color, it is racial discrimination. Again, it doesn't matter how noble you mistakenly think it is. It's discrimination based on skin color.

Dictionary.com:
dis·crim·i·na·tion n.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

By that definition, Affirmative action is undoubtedly discrimination.

It's no different than how only minorities are victims of hate crimes, and how no minority is capable of being racist.

What I want to know is how long I, as a white male, have to be held accountable for the actions of others that share the same skin color as myself, most of said actions happening long before I was born and long before anyone in my family ever stepped foot on American soil?

New Democratic Party of Canada - Liberal Party of Canada - Progresive Conservitive Party of Canada / American Democrats(they are about the same) - Canadian Alliance - Republicans

As of yesterday the Progressive Conservitive Pary and the Canadian Alliance no longer exist however and have formed the Conservitve Party of Canada, this new party will most likely be closer to the American Republicans than the Democrats because a large protion of the Progressive Conservatives jumped ship once the merger happened (including a former Prime Minister among other high profile deserters) and are either now independent or have joined the Liberal Party

In addition since the departure of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin becoming the Prime Minister the Liberal Party has taken a shift to the right and now occupy a position much closer to that of the American Democrats than during the Chretien era, now that the last remanents of the Trudeau-Pearson era have left politics.

It is expected that in the next federal election the Liberals will strengthen their majority now since they will be atracting many former PC suporters and for some reason Paul Martin, and anglo from Quebec has more support from fracophones in Quebec then Jean Chretien. While the new conservative party is expected to lose all credibility in eastern and central Canada now due to their more extreme conservative views and the image that they are a regionaly based western party rather than a true national party. The NDP are also expected to make gains as many of the more liberal supporters of the liberal party don't agree with the new more conservative positions of Paul Martin.

Ah, for the "problem" that the main party is too close to the left side of center...

dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.


#3 is clearly the relevant one. And two can play your game, Weltall... it's discrimination to not give people in the category of 'lower class' treatment that would help to improve their chances of attaining equal status.

And your sad belief that there is not racial discrimination to any significant degree anymore in this country is a big part of the problem. People think that, but if you look at society it's painfully obvious that no statement could be further from the truth. The latest immigrant group -- in our case Hispanics -- is disliked by many. They are lazy, don't work, are criminals (hmm how many dozen times have we heard THOSE statements aimed at the latest immigrants to this country before? Dozens, at least?)... and as for blacks, well, just look at the jails! A significantly larger number of blacks than whites are in them compared to population. That isn't an accident. The different races still just aren't treated fairly. And as I said it's not just the fact that the targetted minorities are poor (which they undoubtedly are in dramatically higher numbers than whites), but that as much as it would be great if race would vanish it IS still relevant. Setting percents for different racial groups based on how many would be there if it was all equal? That is an attempt to make up for centuries of (continuing in a somewhat lesser fashion) opression... if all were equal, we wouldn't need AA. But it isn't.

Maybe poor white people should have some additional benifits too, I don't know... though they would be helped a lot if we'd just do other things, such as tax reform that would actually help (by lessening the burden on the lower classes and raising it on the upper ones), free health care for everyone (that would help dramatically in these categories of people), more help lowering college bills from the government... more money and more actual attempts to improve schools in poor districts and not just tests which really are not a good indicator of how well the district is doing (especially when they can manipulate things to make themselves look better, as is possible), etc...

#3 is clearly the relevant one. And two can play your game, Weltall... it's discrimination to not give people in the category of 'lower class' treatment that would help to improve their chances of attaining equal status.
No it isn't. In reality, the only way not to discriminate is to not give anyone any advantage, to let things happen as they may. In fact, it would appear to me that giving the lower class special treatment goes right along with "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit". That line sums up PERFECTLY what Affirmative Action is: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.

You need to read a little more carefully. I will not argue the merits and demerits of affirmative action. I've made my stance crystal clear. But you cannot say it is not discrimination, you make yourself look stupid by repeatedly doing so. The very definition of the word proves it.

Category. Such as poor people, especially minority poor people. Such as how it's discriminatory to do things to them that lower that status further, such as AA.

Giving no one an advantage is giving some people a disadvantage when one group is in a worse state. A very similar case is gay rights... the only way to insure equality is to protect gays from being fired or harrassed like we do for religion, skin color, gender, etc. I know you'll disagree vehemently, but your attempts to make it look like "fact" that giving disadvantaged people some things that help them to try to attain equality (it doesn't make them equal, not yet, but in time it will) is actually giving them advantages over others which they should not have (a very flawed idea if you actually believe in true equality, as in that all groups should be represented equally -- something that will never happen because of the bad state of some groups (pn the whole) unless we give them help --)... absurd.

You completely misunderstand me, boy. My only point is that the practice is discrimination. And it is.

I believe in true equality, by means of assimilation. Liberals believe in equality by division. If you look at American history, there are many ethnic groups that were once in the same boat that blacks and hispanics are in today, but no longer are. Italians, Jews, Orientals, Irish... they assimilated themselves into mainstream society, and now they are equal. They are no less successful than anyone else, despite centuries of discrimination.

They got over it. They got over it without reverse-discrimination programs. They did it by way of hard work, and by giving up their overt ties to their ethnicity. They are, except in the eyes of ever-divisive liberals, unhyphenated-Americans.

On the other hand you have blacks and hispanics, the beneficiaries of Affirmative action. Liberal division tactics are making things worse for them. They are eternal victims, so you say.

I think if you libs kept your damn hands out of the process, and allow blacks and hispanics to assimilate into American culture properly, affirmative action would be totally unnecessary.

Again, many ethnic groups achieved equality without it, so to say it is the only way blacks and hispanics will is a lie.

So because they suffered (and BTW blacks are quite different from hispanics in this regard given how they've been here a lot longer and are still near the bottom...) it's fine to make everyone else suffer too? So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.

Or not.

And as for equality... again... for some it required legislation -- otherwise I'm sure that some people would be fired for their religious beliefs (if it wasn't illegal to discriminate on religion)... or racists would on color...

So because they suffered (and BTW blacks are quite different from hispanics in this regard given how they've been here a lot longer and are still near the bottom...) it's fine to make everyone else suffer too? So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.

Or not.

And as for equality... again... for some it required legislation -- otherwise I'm sure that some people would be fired for their religious beliefs (if it wasn't illegal to discriminate on religion)... or racists would on color...

The problem is that categorization isnt always realistic ,Blacks are not all disadvantaged nore are all Hispanics some make big income just as much as the white majority, I think labeling people is wrong, "This guy is black he must be poor and barely educated" I think people would be offended if they had that said to them.

I think the idea of equality is equal opportunity and thats the matter of being protected from racism.but I dont see why a poor black student should be given a leg up from a poor white student just because of his skin color alone.

So because they suffered (and BTW blacks are quite different from hispanics in this regard given how they've been here a lot longer and are still near the bottom...) it's fine to make everyone else suffer too? So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.
What a stupid thing to say. You're a lily-white liberal college boy in Maine. What the hell do you know about how blacks and hispanics 'suffer'? How often do you even SEE blacks and hispanics up there?

Yes, blacks are near the bottom, and it's your failed social experiments responsible for it. You people have transformed blacks into the ultimate victim race, you have sapped their will to achieve, and you constantly bombard them with lies and free money to keep their loyalty. Blacks as a people are selling their souls to you people, and that's why after all these years of Affirmative Action, black culture is very distinct but also very corrupt and ruined. Back in the Civil rights era, blacks as a whole were industrious, hard-working people who wanted to better themselves. Now, the current generation commercially glorifies criminal behavior and degeneracy. They have completely forgotten what their fathers and grandfathers struggled for, and now they idolize glamour thugs who make millions of dollars making songs about drugs, murder, and sex. This has helped ruin black families (how many still have two parents?), black culture, and black life. As standards of living increased, the new generation of Americans are FAR more tolerant, far less racist than previous. Jobs and educations are easier to get than ever, yet blacks are even WORSE off now than forty years ago. Your social programs are the very definition of the word 'failure'. Congratulations, you stole their souls.

And you have no one to thank but yourselves for this.

And as for equality... again... for some it required legislation -- otherwise I'm sure that some people would be fired for their religious beliefs (if it wasn't illegal to discriminate on religion)... or racists would on color...
If there was any legislation at all, it was weak and unenforced. Whatever there might have been didn't even begin to compare with the monster we have on our hands today for blacks and hispanics. Discrimination happened all the time. But still, these people overcame their obstancles and now have none. They assimilated. They don't have ethnic distinctions anymore.

If liberals had gotten an early start and told these people they were victims and that their ethnicity was a free ticket to all sorts of legal advantages, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, all these groups would be in the same bad position you put blacks in today.

Liberals paved the road to hell with their supposedly good (but equally self-serving) intentions. The old sayings are true.

What a stupid thing to say. You're a lily-white liberal college boy in Maine. What the hell do you know about how blacks and hispanics 'suffer'? How often do you even SEE blacks and hispanics up there?

3% of the Maine population is minorities. However, it's a poor (and rural) state and there are a lot of poor white people...

Yes, blacks are near the bottom, and it's your failed social experiments responsible for it. You people have transformed blacks into the ultimate victim race, you have sapped their will to achieve, and you constantly bombard them with lies and free money to keep their loyalty. Blacks as a people are selling their souls to you people, and that's why after all these years of Affirmative Action, black culture is very distinct but also very corrupt and ruined. Back in the Civil rights era, blacks as a whole were industrious, hard-working people who wanted to better themselves. Now, the current generation commercially glorifies criminal behavior and degeneracy. They have completely forgotten what their fathers and grandfathers struggled for, and now they idolize glamour thugs who make millions of dollars making songs about drugs, murder, and sex. This has helped ruin black families (how many still have two parents?), black culture, and black life. As standards of living increased, the new generation of Americans are FAR more tolerant, far less racist than previous. Jobs and educations are easier to get than ever, yet blacks are even WORSE off now than forty years ago. Your social programs are the very definition of the word 'failure'. Congratulations, you stole their souls.

And you have no one to thank but yourselves for this.

Blaming current black culture on social programs is just so utterly idiotic that there isn't much I can say... the two have nothing in common. And programs like AA are the very things that if allowed to work as they should will eventually help blacks out of their current condition. Doing nothing and letting them suffer is cruel and it is prototypical conservativism that wants the people on the bottom to suffer. That is such an immoral position that I can't even begin to say how wrong it is! Helping poor and disadvantaged groups is the only way we can get it so that eventually they are not poor or disadvantaged anymore. Nothing else will actually help them.

If there was any legislation at all, it was weak and unenforced. Whatever there might have been didn't even begin to compare with the monster we have on our hands today for blacks and hispanics. Discrimination happened all the time. But still, these people overcame their obstancles and now have none. They assimilated. They don't have ethnic distinctions anymore.

If liberals had gotten an early start and told these people they were victims and that their ethnicity was a free ticket to all sorts of legal advantages, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, all these groups would be in the same bad position you put blacks in today.

Liberals paved the road to hell with their supposedly good (but equally self-serving) intentions. The old sayings are true.

I make a new point and you ignore it and repeat yourself... typical.

So I'll repeat mine.

So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.

I think that sums up why your "it was fine before" arguement is total idiocy.

Hispanics and Blacks, again, are quite different. Hispanics are indeed in the 'latest opressed immigrant' group like Irish were at one point, or Chinese, or myriad other groups. Given enough time they probably will Americanize and blend in as well as a group that has a distinct identity (and isn't all white) can... but Blacks? They've been here since the beginning and on the bottom the whole time. It's in the interest of conservatives like you to keep them there, so you try to kill all the programs that might get them out. Simple.

Why is it in the Kobe Bryant Case they brought up the issue of racism? The Guy admited to cheating on his wife, yet when the woman acusses him of rape he runs to Shout Racist and infact just about very law suite with a black person in it the issue of racism is brought up weither it is relevant are not.You wouldnt see that if it was a latino or Oriental.

3% of the Maine population is minorities. However, it's a poor (and rural) state and there are a lot of poor white people... So how does that give you better insight into the 'suffering' of black people?

Blaming current black culture on social programs is just so utterly idiotic that there isn't much I can say... the two have nothing in common. And programs like AA are the very things that if allowed to work as they should will eventually help blacks out of their current condition. Doing nothing and letting them suffer is cruel and it is prototypical conservativism that wants the people on the bottom to suffer. That is such an immoral position that I can't even begin to say how wrong it is! Helping poor and disadvantaged groups is the only way we can get it so that eventually they are not poor or disadvantaged anymore. Nothing else will actually help them. This is hilarious shit. You are so not on planet earth.

The fact that black culture's decline started after the civil rights movement is no coincidence. But don't let the facts distract you from your little dreamworld. I suppose you just missed the whole part about the myriad of ethnic groups that thrived despite not having affirmative action. Hell, it seems like only those that DO benefit from it are bad and getting worse.



I make a new point and you ignore it and repeat yourself... typical.

So I'll repeat mine. I ignored that point. It was so stupid that it didn't warrant a response. It still doesn't.

[/quote]I think that sums up why your "it was fine before" arguement is total idiocy.[/quote] The only thing it sums up is how stupid it is to compare racial relations to cancer. But I'll play your game.

Affirmative action is supposed to be a cure but in the end makes things worse. Ethnic groups achieved more success without it than with. Again, I provided several good examples of this.

Happy?

Hispanics and Blacks, again, are quite different. Hispanics are indeed in the 'latest opressed immigrant' group like Irish were at one point, or Chinese, or myriad other groups. Given enough time they probably will Americanize and blend in as well as a group that has a distinct identity (and isn't all white) can... but Blacks? They've been here since the beginning and on the bottom the whole time. It's in the interest of conservatives like you to keep them there, so you try to kill all the programs that might get them out. Simple. This is crazy. What gain would I have keeping blacks poor? Who could possibly gain from that?

Liberals.

Keeping blacks poor and destitute ensures that liberals have a very safe voter base. To keep them poor, they create social programs, disguise them as beneficial, and the scam plays on. Blacks stay poor, Liberals not only have a loyal fanbase but something to blame Conservatives on.

In our last argument you said the same bullshit, that conservatives wanted to keep the poor poor. I asked you to show me how welfare made poor people stop being poor. You never provided me this information.

Now, I show you how assimilation benefits ethnic groups better than affirmative action has. You say I'm wrong. So, in what will almost certainly prove futile, I ask you to prove how Affirmative action helps minorities become equal moreso than the non-intrusive, non-discriminatory assimilation methods that brought practically every ethnic group that isn't black or hispanic to equality.

I know you won't do it, I just challenge you like this because your refusal to follow up shows that your words are meaningless lies.

So how does that give you better insight into the 'suffering' of black people?

Didn't say it did. And anyway it's not like I'm the one coming up with these ideas...

This is hilarious shit. You are so not on planet earth.

The fact that black culture's decline started after the civil rights movement is no coincidence. But don't let the facts distract you from your little dreamworld. I suppose you just missed the whole part about the myriad of ethnic groups that thrived despite not having affirmative action. Hell, it seems like only those that DO benefit from it are bad and getting worse.

I won't bother trying to dissuade you from delusions you believe so ardently... sure black culture has decayed in recent years (especially the last ten or so, with gangster rap), but what are these other groups that are down? American Indians? No, they're about the same as they've been for quite some time... but blame that on the rappers who invented this stuff... once it gets out there it starts to influence people, but it had to come from somewhere. And blaming it on welfare is insane. For one thing before the Civil Rights movement none of this could have happened... blacks wouldn't be allowed to do things like they are...

I ignored that point. It was so stupid that it didn't warrant a response. It still doesn't.

It's a great proof for why you are deluded!

The only thing it sums up is how stupid it is to compare racial relations to cancer. But I'll play your game.

Affirmative action is supposed to be a cure but in the end makes things worse. Ethnic groups achieved more success without it than with. Again, I provided several good examples of this.

Cancer was just an example I came up with when I was writing... I could have used just about anything and had it make just as much sense... because by the means I can see, like cancer treatment, welfare and affirmative action and other programs for the disadvantaged are proving a lot of good...

And those ethnic groups that got over it took a LONG time to get over it. The Chineese, Irish... they were persecuted for generations! It is insane to say that that was okay. It was absolutely and totally not okay. Just like the current hatred of hispanics is not okay. Condoning that kind of behavior is, I'd say, racist.

This is crazy. What gain would I have keeping blacks poor? Who could possibly gain from that?

Liberals.

Keeping blacks poor and destitute ensures that liberals have a very safe voter base. To keep them poor, they create social programs, disguise them as beneficial, and the scam plays on. Blacks stay poor, Liberals not only have a loyal fanbase but something to blame Conservatives on.

In our last argument you said the same bullshit, that conservatives wanted to keep the poor poor. I asked you to show me how welfare made poor people stop being poor. You never provided me this information.

Now, I show you how assimilation benefits ethnic groups better than affirmative action has. You say I'm wrong. So, in what will almost certainly prove futile, I ask you to prove how Affirmative action helps minorities become equal moreso than the non-intrusive, non-discriminatory assimilation methods that brought practically every ethnic group that isn't black or hispanic to equality.

I know you won't do it, I just challenge you like this because your refusal to follow up shows that your words are meaningless lies.

Your insane consiracy theories sound more crazy every time you repeat them, you know... and the idea that by not helping people that will suffer badly and needlessly you are helping them is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

Didn't say it did. And anyway it's not like I'm the one coming up with these ideas...
Obviously. The ones that are don't really seem to have any more insight than you do.

I won't bother trying to dissuade you from delusions you believe so ardently... sure black culture has decayed in recent years (especially the last ten or so, with gangster rap), but what are these other groups that are down? American Indians? No, they're about the same as they've been for quite some time... but blame that on the rappers who invented this stuff... once it gets out there it starts to influence people, but it had to come from somewhere. And blaming it on welfare is insane. For one thing before the Civil Rights movement none of this could have happened... blacks wouldn't be allowed to do things like they are...
...what? I don't really get what angle you're trying to get at here. It seems like you're almost saying "You're wrong, I agree with you."

Clarify.

It's a great proof for why you are deluded!
History vindicates me. I've shown why, and you haven't denied it.

Cancer was just an example I came up with when I was writing... I could have used just about anything and had it make just as much sense... because by the means I can see, like cancer treatment, welfare and affirmative action and other programs for the disadvantaged are proving a lot of good...
Again, this is the priveleged college kid speaking. What the priveleged college kid thinks is that these do-gooder programs work. What the priveleged college kid can never explain is why more and more black families are broken, why more and more black kids fail school, why violence among blacks is increasing, why black culture is disintegrating, why other ethnic groups surpassed them, and how affirmative action and welfare are doing a damn thing about fixing these problems.

It's like, you don't care that the problems exist and are getting worse. The only thing you care about is that you people attempted to do something about it, even if it was the wrong thing to do. You think that gives you some imaginary moral high ground, and that everyone who disagrees is racist and intolerant.

I am intolerant. I'm intolerant of lying morons taking credit for helping people while only making their situation worse.

And those ethnic groups that got over it took a LONG time to get over it. The Chineese, Irish... they were persecuted for generations! It is insane to say that that was okay. It was absolutely and totally not okay. Just like the current hatred of hispanics is not okay. Condoning that kind of behavior is, I'd say, racist.
It did take a long time. But it happened. And after almost four decades of liberal social programs, two generations by some people's reckoning, blacks still aren't 'over it'. Their lot doesn't improve at all. No progress.

It's not that I can't see how affirmative action and welfare could succeed. They could very well have achieved the intended result. They just haven't. Miserably haven't. Another good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.

Your insane consiracy theories sound more crazy every time you repeat them, you know... and the idea that by not helping people that will suffer badly and needlessly you are helping them is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.
Translation for the audience: "I still have no proof whatsoever to back up anything I say, therefore everything I say is irrelevant."

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9708/opinion/mead.html - A decent read regardless of position...


Translation for the audience: "I still have no proof whatsoever to back up anything I say, therefore everything I say is irrelevant."

Doing the required research is NOT worth the time to not convince one person who won't listen regardless.

It did take a long time. But it happened. And after almost four decades of liberal social programs, two generations by some people's reckoning, blacks still aren't 'over it'. Their lot doesn't improve at all. No progress.

It's not that I can't see how affirmative action and welfare could succeed. They could very well have achieved the intended result. They just haven't. Miserably haven't. Another good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.

I would say that blacks have gone somewhere from before civil rights, obviously -- note that they can vote... since then? No not as much progress, but given how little has happened to change that it's hardly surprising... oh, and both are definitely helping a lot of people.


Again, this is the priveleged college kid speaking. What the priveleged college kid thinks is that these do-gooder programs work. What the priveleged college kid can never explain is why more and more black families are broken, why more and more black kids fail school, why violence among blacks is increasing, why black culture is disintegrating, why other ethnic groups surpassed them, and how affirmative action and welfare are doing a damn thing about fixing these problems.

It's like, you don't care that the problems exist and are getting worse. The only thing you care about is that you people attempted to do something about it, even if it was the wrong thing to do. You think that gives you some imaginary moral high ground, and that everyone who disagrees is racist and intolerant.

I am intolerant. I'm intolerant of lying morons taking credit for helping people while only making their situation worse.

The main thing making the situation worse is the constant actions of conservatives like you to get rid of the system of laws that help those people... there's a reason most all blacks are Democrats -- they know that your idea of "help" would be the precise opposite and that the Democrats can help them if they were able. People like you stop most help from actually getting to people, of course, so we'll have to wait.

And your standard tactic of saying that all poor people are lying scum mooching off the poor rich people who shouldn't have to deal with such trash because they couldn't help themselves do the impossible sure doesn't ingratiate you among any group other than the wealthy and the stupid, that's for sure. Because you'd have to be in one of those groups to believe something that dumb. It is just simply not true in any sense.

History vindicates me. I've shown why, and you haven't denied it.

History proves how totally wrong your ideas are, that's what it proves.

...what? I don't really get what angle you're trying to get at here. It seems like you're almost saying "You're wrong, I agree with you."

I agree gangsta rap culture is bad, but not about the cause...

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9708/opinion/mead.html - A decent read regardless of position...

Agreed.

Doing the required research is NOT worth the time to not convince one person who won't listen regardless.

Translation: "I repeat what my liberal college professors tell me to believe, but I don't know why."

I would say that blacks have gone somewhere from before civil rights, obviously -- note that they can vote... since then? No not as much progress, but given how little has happened to change that it's hardly surprising... oh, and both are definitely helping a lot of people.

The right for blacks to vote was established in the 15th amendment, a hundred years before the civil rights movement.

The thing is, there has been a lot of change. Again, our generation is more tolerant and accepting than any other before... and yet, things get worse.

As for it helping a lot of people, stop saying nonsense you can't prove. If you can't the time to show me, then don't bother telling me.

The main thing making the situation worse is the constant actions of conservatives like you to get rid of the system of laws that help those people... there's a reason most all blacks are Democrats -- they know that your idea of "help" would be the precise opposite and that the Democrats can help them if they were able. People like you stop most help from actually getting to people, of course, so we'll have to wait.

How are the helping people? Again, don't say what you can't prove.

And your standard tactic of saying that all poor people are lying scum mooching off the poor rich people who shouldn't have to deal with such trash because they couldn't help themselves do the impossible sure doesn't ingratiate you among any group other than the wealthy and the stupid, that's for sure. Because you'd have to be in one of those groups to believe something that dumb. It is just simply not true in any sense.

What about the middle class? Liberals so often forget it exists, even though it's the largest economic class, the one that bears much of the tax burden.

My family was poor once. We aren't now. We're not rich but we're comfortable. And we never used government subsidies to get here. My parents worked hard and saved scrupulously. So no, I don't think all poor people are stupid and lazy, but I do think quite a few are and I think a good reason some are is because of free handouts. This is why I also know that poor people CAN in fact succeed without government handouts. It takes hard work and smarts. And if my family can do it, why can't anyone else?

History proves how totally wrong your ideas are, that's what it proves.

Don't say what you can't prove, Part III.

[quote]I agree gangsta rap culture is bad, but not about the cause...

It's not a cause, just a very unfortunate effect.

Agreed.

I'd say that that's a conservative site (or at least religious), but that article succeeds by not really saying which side is better but that both have flaws...

Translation: "I repeat what my liberal college professors tell me to believe, but I don't know why."

And parents (erm, one a liberal college professor), and relatives (...most of whom are liberals too, and several college professors), and common sense...

Either way I'd look harder if I didn't know you would never pay much attention to anything I found, so what's the point?

http://www.thismodernworld.com/ - the This Modern World website, and liberal blog... :)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/ -- Bush's exemplary military record!

The right for blacks to vote was established in the 15th amendment, a hundred years before the civil rights movement.

The thing is, there has been a lot of change. Again, our generation is more tolerant and accepting than any other before... and yet, things get worse.

As for it helping a lot of people, stop saying nonsense you can't prove. If you can't the time to show me, then don't bother telling me.

And blocked in the South by Jim Crow until the Civil Rights Movement succeeded.

And yes, each generation is more tolerant than the one before it. It gives me hope that in the long run we'll get past the hatred people like you have for some groups... though things like despising poor people are unlikely to change.

How are the helping people? Again, don't say what you can't prove.

With our wide variety of social programs of course...


What about the middle class? Liberals so often forget it exists, even though it's the largest economic class, the one that bears much of the tax burden.

My family was poor once. We aren't now. We're not rich but we're comfortable. And we never used government subsidies to get here. My parents worked hard and saved scrupulously. So no, I don't think all poor people are stupid and lazy, but I do think quite a few are and I think a good reason some are is because of free handouts. This is why I also know that poor people CAN in fact succeed without government handouts. It takes hard work and smarts. And if my family can do it, why can't anyone else?

The middle class? All anyone needs to do to know the Republicans aren't for them is look at their tax bill. Maybe Bush's tax cuts cut a couple hundred dollars. Then look at the tax bill of the top 5% and see how it was cut by thousands and thousands, and had a huge percentage drop.

If the tax burden was fair it would definitely help the middle class... same with health care. A lot of people either don't have any or have poor coverage, and we desperately need to improve that by increasing the amount of health care paid for by the government. This would be a huge help for everyone, from the uninsured to small business owners...

Oh, and so your family got out. It does happen sometimes. Just very rarely, especially when you consider how many people are poor. The "we got out so anyone could" fallacy has been one of conservatism's biggest fallacies about poverty for centuries now...

It's not a cause, just a very unfortunate effect.

Absolutely not. If social programs had really been tried, and had been given the time to work, this whole thing might have either been avoided or wouldn't have been as big... now I know that not everyone will escape poverty, but we should try as hard as we can to go for that goal.

I'd say that that's a conservative site (or at least religious), but that article succeeds by not really saying which side is better but that both have flaws...

Yeah. It'd be like this thread, minus a lot of anger, plus a lot more reason.

And parents (erm, one a liberal college professor), and relatives (...most of whom are liberals too, and several college professors), and common sense...

Wow, I had no idea how right I was. :|

Either way I'd look harder if I didn't know you would never pay much attention to anything I found, so what's the point?

Because I asked for it. And I'd refute it if I found it lacking. That's how debate works.

http://www.thismodernworld.com/ - the This Modern World website, and liberal blog... :)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/ -- Bush's exemplary military record!

:barf:

And blocked in the South by Jim Crow until the Civil Rights Movement succeeded.

In the south, yes. The south is just one part of America. Hell, there were blacks ELECTED before the movement.

And yes, each generation is more tolerant than the one before it. It gives me hope that in the long run we'll get past the hatred people like you have for some groups... though things like despising poor people are unlikely to change.

I have no more hatred for poor than you do for the rich. Take that for what you will.

With our wide variety of social programs of course...

Don't say what you can't prove PART IV.

The middle class? All anyone needs to do to know the Republicans aren't for them is look at their tax bill. Maybe Bush's tax cuts cut a couple hundred dollars. Then look at the tax bill of the top 5% and see how it was cut by thousands and thousands, and had a huge percentage drop.

I don't care if the rich pay less. Why should I? As long as I'm not paying more, I'm fine with it.

You're telling me the Republicans don't care about the middle class because they didn't cut our taxes as hard, but you expect me to believe liberals care about us because they want to RAISE taxes? To pay for things that don't benefit us to boot?

Wow. That's just insane.

If the tax burden was fair it would definitely help the middle class... same with health care. A lot of people either don't have any or have poor coverage, and we desperately need to improve that by increasing the amount of health care paid for by the government. This would be a huge help for everyone, from the uninsured to small business owners...

Everyone? You forget that most people do have insurance, I suppose.

Oh, and so your family got out. It does happen sometimes. Just very rarely, especially when you consider how many people are poor. The "we got out so anyone could" fallacy has been one of conservatism's biggest fallacies about poverty for centuries now...

Very rare? So that means my parents must be fucking geniuses. I don't give them enough credit.

And a little something else: Most people aren't poor. Percentage-wise, the poor are not that large a group. And most of those people aren't in dire straits anyway. Many are skirting the so-called poverty line. And imagine this, many people do just fine under the poverty level. They don't have the nicest clothes and the newest toys but they are well-fed and have adequate shelter.

Remember that money can't buy happiness.

Absolutely not. If social programs had really been tried, and had been given the time to work, this whole thing might have either been avoided or wouldn't have been as big... now I know that not everyone will escape poverty, but we should try as hard as we can to go for that goal.

They were tried. Some have been given as long as seventy years to work. They worked at first. They don't now.

And, yet again, how does welfare end poverty? Has it ever ended poverty for anyone?

Instead of coming up with witless responses to every little thing I say, you could focus all your boundless posting energy onto that one topic.

I have no more hatred for poor than you do for the rich. Take that for what you will.

The rich are rich and thus have more than enough and should be giving far more back to society than the people lower down.

Wow, I had no idea how right I was. :|

On my mom's side going back to my grandparent's generation I can think of five college professors... one's pretty strongly right-wing, though. The rest of the family doesn't talk about politics with them. :)

Because I asked for it. And I'd refute it if I found it lacking. That's how debate works.

Those are good sites. Not what you asked for, exactly, but good liberal sites with lots of stuff on them that proves how idiotic Bush and his administration are.

In the south, yes. The south is just one part of America. Hell, there were blacks ELECTED before the movement.

Most blacks live in the south...

Don't say what you can't prove PART IV.

It is impossible to prove this to you. I know I've found good things to say before and you've never listened for a second so why bother again?

I don't care if the rich pay less. Why should I? As long as I'm not paying more, I'm fine with it.

You're telling me the Republicans don't care about the middle class because they didn't cut our taxes as hard, but you expect me to believe liberals care about us because they want to RAISE taxes? To pay for things that don't benefit us to boot?

Wow. That's just insane.

You should care that they pay less because it means you pay more. SOMEONE has to pay. And yes, the Republicans do not, never did, and never will care about anyone other than the rich. It's been their position ever since soon after they were founded and still is.

And there are more things than taxes. Schools, for instance. Science. Health insurance. Etc. If taxes are higher it means we can better fund such essential programs as those, that always get cut under Republican administrations...

I'll bet that there are plenty of people out there who if they really thought about it would realize that if they paid more taxes, but got free (or cheaper, as is much more realistic in the short term) health insurance in return (or their employer got breaks to get them to give their employees better coverage, especially in small businesses which are getting hit really, really hard by health and accident insurance costs), that they'd be getting a very good deal? Especially if it came with actually good education improvement too...

Very rare? So that means my parents must be fucking geniuses. I don't give them enough credit.

And a little something else: Most people aren't poor. Percentage-wise, the poor are not that large a group. And most of those people aren't in dire straits anyway. Many are skirting the so-called poverty line. And imagine this, many people do just fine under the poverty level. They don't have the nicest clothes and the newest toys but they are well-fed and have adequate shelter.

Remember that money can't buy happiness.

As I've said before, the definition of "poor" is innaccurate and misleading...

They were tried. Some have been given as long as seventy years to work. They worked at first. They don't now.

And, yet again, how does welfare end poverty? Has it ever ended poverty for anyone?

Instead of coming up with witless responses to every little thing I say, you could focus all your boundless posting energy onto that one topic.

There is no way to end poverty completely... that isn't really a realistic goal... but we need to make it not as bad and make it easier for poor people to get out of poverty. Making them do it themselves does not do that, since most are unable to even begin...

And obviously welfare has helped people out of poverty. It helps you not completely fall apart while you try to improve your life... yes, getting people off the welfare rolls is a good idea... but again, only when the jobs they are going to are actually good enough to support a person or a family adaquately. So many, probably most, of the lower-end jobs just don't do that...

The rich are rich and thus have more than enough and should be giving far more back to society than the people lower down.
Does this mean "Yes, I hate the rich" or "No, I don't hate the rich"?

On my mom's side going back to my grandparent's generation I can think of five college professors... one's pretty strongly right-wing, though. The rest of the family doesn't talk about politics with them. :)
I bet they don't. But it's good to know your pedigree isn't completely tainted. ;)

Those are good sites. Not what you asked for, exactly, but good liberal sites with lots of stuff on them that proves how idiotic Bush and his administration are.
I asked for proof about social programs, not wide-based liberal propaganda machines.

Most blacks live in the south...
That is increasingly not the case.

It is impossible to prove this to you. I know I've found good things to say before and you've never listened for a second so why bother again?
Translation: I'm full of crap but too chicken to admit it.

You should care that they pay less because it means you pay more. SOMEONE has to pay. And yes, the Republicans do not, never did, and never will care about anyone other than the rich. It's been their position ever since soon after they were founded and still is.
The rich pay, percentage-wise, far, far more taxes than I do. So no, I don't feel the least bit of resentment against them. It's my goal to be rich one day. Why would I hate them?

Note: Having goals and working to achieve them is basically the centerpiece of my entire ideological belief. I don't feel resentment over not being rich because I haven't earned it. And if I do become rich, I won't feel the slightest guilt for anyone who isn't, because I did work for it.

As far as your statements on the middle-class, increased taxes hurt the middle-class. Reduced taxes help them. Liberals raise taxes. Conservatives tend to lower them.

2+2 still equals four.

And there are more things than taxes. Schools, for instance. Science. Health insurance. Etc. If taxes are higher it means we can better fund such essential programs as those, that always get cut under Republican administrations...
And if taxes are lessened, middle-class families can better afford far superior private schools for their children and better health insurance coverage. Zing!

I'll bet that there are plenty of people out there who if they really thought about it would realize that if they paid more taxes, but got free (or cheaper, as is much more realistic in the short term) health insurance in return (or their employer got breaks to get them to give their employees better coverage, especially in small businesses which are getting hit really, really hard by health and accident insurance costs), that they'd be getting a very good deal? Especially if it came with actually good education improvement too...
Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.

Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.

As I've said before, the definition of "poor" is innaccurate and misleading...
No matter how you look at it, percentage-wise there are not many poor people in America. If you count poor as making under a certain amount of money, there are few. If you count poor as destitute, that number is much smaller.

There is no way to end poverty completely... that isn't really a realistic goal... but we need to make it not as bad and make it easier for poor people to get out of poverty. Making them do it themselves does not do that, since most are unable to even begin...
Most are able to begin. Most people have the opportunity. But we can't tell because social programs stymie any hope of that happening.

And obviously welfare has helped people out of poverty. It helps you not completely fall apart while you try to improve your life... yes, getting people off the welfare rolls is a good idea... but again, only when the jobs they are going to are actually good enough to support a person or a family adaquately. So many, probably most, of the lower-end jobs just don't do that...
Again, I don't understand your logic. You have this crazed idea that it's better for people to not work for their money. Welfare usually doesn't pay anymore than a minimum wage job does.

Plus, I know you ignore most of what I say, but in the past I've said several times that I don't mind people recieving welfare IN ADDITION to income from a job, which would save money on welfare rolls AND give people more income! What I do NOT like is the idea of people getting it for absolutely nothing in return. And few of those people are physically incapable of working. What I do not like is people who intentionally create large families just to get free welfare money. I don't think it's the government's job to save you from being stupid.

Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.


It depends were in canada your talking about , If canada could just have more docters and nurses the national health care system would work, But the advantage of our health care is lower costs to the patients were only 60% of americans have health care insurance and not everyones insurance is acceptable in every clinic. What I reccomend for the U.S is a national medicare that is optional were if you are well off and can afford good hospitals you dont need to pay taxes for medicare, Were if you dont have good insurance you can get on medicare coverage for the price of additional taxes.

Keeping blacks poor and destitute ensures that liberals have a very safe voter base. To keep them poor, they create social programs, disguise them as beneficial, and the scam plays on. Blacks stay poor, Liberals not only have a loyal fanbase but something to blame Conservatives on.

Yeah! It's all one big giant, conspiracy, man, that the government designed to make sure that everybody stays poor. Duuude.

Yeah! It's all one big giant, conspiracy, man, that the government designed to make sure that everybody stays poor. Duuude.

And he actually believes it too. It's pretty scary.

Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.

Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.

It depends were in canada your talking about , If canada could just have more docters and nurses the national health care system would work, But the advantage of our health care is lower costs to the patients were only 60% of americans have health care insurance and not everyones insurance is acceptable in every clinic. What I reccomend for the U.S is a national medicare that is optional were if you are well off and can afford good hospitals you dont need to pay taxes for medicare, Were if you dont have good insurance you can get on medicare coverage for the price of additional taxes.

The US overall has worse health care than pretty much the whole first world. We're way down on the list. Why? Because 40 million people have no coverage at all (not 40%, ASM...) and most of the rest don't have anything close to comprehensive coverage. National health care wouldn't be the best system ever but I'd take it over HMOs, no question... HMOs are awful if you ever are unlucky enough to actually need care. Slower? Maybe. But everyone would HAVE it, and would have a decent plan that might actually cover the things they need... in America today that just is not the case and that is why the Democrats are focusing so much on this issue.

Does this mean "Yes, I hate the rich" or "No, I don't hate the rich"?

Saying that the rich should be paying a lot higher percentage than everyone else and should not be getting tax cuts isn't hating them, it's saying that since they have the money they can afford to give a lot more and should give a lot more... corporations too. Corporate tax breaks shouldn't happen much.

I asked for proof about social programs, not wide-based liberal propaganda machines.

They have all kinds of links to articles that show how idiotic and evil this administration is on a wide variety of topics, especially the first one...

That is increasingly not the case.

But we were talking about pre-Civil Rights...

Translation: I'm full of crap but too chicken to admit it.

No, the translation is that I've given links before and it's never mattered and you are obviously not the type who will ever listen so what in the world would the point be? I think I've supported my case more than enough with evidence over the time we've been arguing these things...

The rich pay, percentage-wise, far, far more taxes than I do. So no, I don't feel the least bit of resentment against them. It's my goal to be rich one day. Why would I hate them?

Note: Having goals and working to achieve them is basically the centerpiece of my entire ideological belief. I don't feel resentment over not being rich because I haven't earned it. And if I do become rich, I won't feel the slightest guilt for anyone who isn't, because I did work for it.

Very few people are rich. Most will not be joining them. And when you are rich you have money so can afford to give more in taxes. Making the poor and lower-middle pay an increasing share of the tax burden while the rich get massive cuts should be criminal...

And if taxes are lessened, middle-class families can better afford far superior private schools for their children and better health insurance coverage. Zing!

Nope. Not with conservative tax cuts that barely cut anything for people below the top 5%.


No matter how you look at it, percentage-wise there are not many poor people in America. If you count poor as making under a certain amount of money, there are few. If you count poor as destitute, that number is much smaller.

Few? I disagree. Tens of millions of people are far from "few"... especially when you consider both rural and urban poverty...

Most are able to begin. Most people have the opportunity. But we can't tell because social programs stymie any hope of that happening.

No, most people are not able to begin. Not at all.

Again, I don't understand your logic. You have this crazed idea that it's better for people to not work for their money. Welfare usually doesn't pay anymore than a minimum wage job does.

Plus, I know you ignore most of what I say, but in the past I've said several times that I don't mind people recieving welfare IN ADDITION to income from a job, which would save money on welfare rolls AND give people more income! What I do NOT like is the idea of people getting it for absolutely nothing in return. And few of those people are physically incapable of working. What I do not like is people who intentionally create large families just to get free welfare money. I don't think it's the government's job to save you from being stupid.

The government should not abandon people to poor, unhappy lives... yes some people cannot be helped or do things to themselves that are stupid but for most poor I wouldn't say that that's the case... if there were decent jobs they could get, they should, but those are rare, especially in an economy like this...

Without welfare (and other programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, etc...) I am absolutely certain that the number of homeless in this country would be a lot higher.

And he actually believes it too. It's pretty scary.
You say there are conservative conspiracies to do the following:

1. Keep the poor poor.
2. Make the rich richer.
3. Keep Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Orientals, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Lesbians, Buddhists, Hindus, Women, Hobbits, Elves, The French, and Cute Little Kittens safely subservient and destitute, so that they will pose no threat to some imaginary Rich White Christian Male oligarchy.
4. Pollute the environment as much as humanly possible, as if we were Captain Planet villians.
5. Conquer the world, one step at a time.

All in all, you have no right to speak about ridiculous conspracies.

Besides, if blacks, et. al., were financially stable and realized that there isn't nearly as much racism as liberals claim there is, they'd never vote Democratic.

The US overall has worse health care than pretty much the whole first world. We're way down on the list. Why? Because 40 million people have no coverage at all (not 40%, ASM...) and most of the rest don't have anything close to comprehensive coverage. National health care wouldn't be the best system ever but I'd take it over HMOs, no question... HMOs are awful if you ever are unlucky enough to actually need care. Slower? Maybe. But everyone would HAVE it, and would have a decent plan that might actually cover the things they need... in America today that just is not the case and that is why the Democrats are focusing so much on this issue.
It depends on the HMO really.

I'm not saying the existing system is perfect, it's hardly that. But nationalizing health care will be an economic catastrophe that we, and frankly, the world, cannot handle. Imagine how America's economy would suffer when taxes have to go up to 50%... 60%... 70%... just to pay for everyone to have bare-bones health coverage.

And again, the devastating effects such an idea would have on medical research would also, in the long run, make the plan save more lives short term, and cost lives long-term.It's not worth it.

Saying that the rich should be paying a lot higher percentage than everyone else and should not be getting tax cuts isn't hating them, it's saying that since they have the money they can afford to give a lot more and should give a lot more... corporations too. Corporate tax breaks shouldn't happen much.
I agree that corporations do not need tax breaks. But, I do not think people with more money deserve to have a higher percentage of it taken away from them. That boils down to punishment for having too much money.

Conversely, expecting the poor to at least attempt to become self-sufficient and not lounge on free government money until they drop dead isn't hating the poor either. It's saying that I expect people to be as industrious and hard-working as anyone else.

They have all kinds of links to articles that show how idiotic and evil this administration is on a wide variety of topics, especially the first one...
I don't care to see stupid lies from humorless rich white liberals. I want information on one specific topic.

But we were talking about pre-Civil Rights... That we were. And the right to vote for blacks was not created or birthed in the 1960s.

No, the translation is that I've given links before and it's never mattered and you are obviously not the type who will ever listen so what in the world would the point be? I think I've supported my case more than enough with evidence over the time we've been arguing these things...
You did ONCE, in all the times I've asked. The one time you did, I was able to successfully refute many of their broad claims. You wouldn't respond in kind.

You haven't supported your position with a single shred of evidence. It's "What I say is true, just because I say it is."

Very few people are rich. Most will not be joining them. And when you are rich you have money so can afford to give more in taxes. Making the poor and lower-middle pay an increasing share of the tax burden while the rich get massive cuts should be criminal...
I support the flat-tax rate. It's more fair than any other method could possibly be. Cuts and raises would be universal and based only on percentage of wealth.

So the rich can afford to give more in taxes. That doesn't in any way justify making them do so. They already pay a great deal of the taxes as it is. One billionaire pays several thousand times as much in taxes as the average joe.

Nope. Not with conservative tax cuts that barely cut anything for people below the top 5%.
Okay, you're obviously not on the same page. Again. That has nothing to do with what I said.

Few? I disagree. Tens of millions of people are far from "few"... especially when you consider both rural and urban poverty...
It is few, especially when you consider that most people in America are not poor. Simple.

No, most people are not able to begin. Not at all.
Yes they are. It's easier now in America than ever before in human history to raise your standard of living. There are more opportunities than people even fifty years ago could have dreamed of.

The government should not abandon people to poor, unhappy lives... yes some people cannot be helped or do things to themselves that are stupid but for most poor I wouldn't say that that's the case... if there were decent jobs they could get, they should, but those are rare, especially in an economy like this...
Jesus. What defines a decent job? It's not like they'd pick produce in a sweltering field all day. Working retail or other entry-level jobs are not the most fun, dignified jobs in the world, but they do pay well enough that in conjunction with a token amount of government support most poor people could live with some comfort and save money for whatever sort of investment they wish, be it financial investment, education, etc.

I just can't believe you think that because they wouldn't be able to get a $25K per year job right off the bat means they'd be better off not working at all. That is stupid. That is purely stupid.

Without welfare (and other programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, etc...) I am absolutely certain that the number of homeless in this country would be a lot higher.
And with a much more tightly-controlled and regulated welfare system, things would be infinitely better. Not to mention, less burdensome to taxpayers.

See the difference is that there is solid evidence behind the things in your little list here.

1. Keep the poor poor.

anti-everything improving poverty related

2. Make the rich richer.

tax policy, corporate tax breaks, corporations writing laws in special meetings with administration officials (like the energy industry for instance), corporate giveaways, ex-CEOs in high office, major environmental law rollbacks (helping corporations), etc, etc, etc


3. Keep Blacks,

anti-AA, anti-poverty programs, serious tax cuts on the poor

Mexicans,

anti-immigration policy

Indians, Orientals, Jews,

Muslims,

just plain hatred

Gays, Lesbians,

anti-gay rights, hatred/fear

Buddhists, Hindus,

Women,

anti-reproductive rights

Hobbits, Elves,

The French,

more hatred

and Cute Little Kittens safely subservient and destitute, so that they will pose no threat to some imaginary Rich White Christian Male oligarchy.
4. Pollute the environment as much as humanly possible, as if we were Captain Planet villians.
5. Conquer the world, one step at a time.

4. if you could you would, and are trying your best to get rid of all those silly environmental laws that stop you. There's a reason that this administration has been called the worst environmentally in an extremely long time...

5. Again you would if you could, but can't right now because the troops are tied down in Iraq... which of course was a step on that path.

It depends on the HMO really.

I'm not saying the existing system is perfect, it's hardly that. But nationalizing health care will be an economic catastrophe that we, and frankly, the world, cannot handle. Imagine how America's economy would suffer when taxes have to go up to 50%... 60%... 70%... just to pay for everyone to have bare-bones health coverage.

And again, the devastating effects such an idea would have on medical research would also, in the long run, make the plan save more lives short term, and cost lives long-term.It's not worth it.

The existing system is badly flawed and more government control and coverage is desperately needed. See, unlike you I think that when given a chance the government can do decent work... and as for "crippling recearch", they'd have more than enough money if they didn't spend such insane amounts advertising.

I agree that corporations do not need tax breaks. But, I do not think people with more money deserve to have a higher percentage of it taken away from them. That boils down to punishment for having too much money.

Conversely, expecting the poor to at least attempt to become self-sufficient and not lounge on free government money until they drop dead isn't hating the poor either. It's saying that I expect people to be as industrious and hard-working as anyone else

The Bush Administration's policy is "whatever a corporation wants, it gets" -- at least as long as it's a conservatively-run one...

Cutting taxes on the poorer groups (or getting rid of them alltogether) and coorspondingly raising them on high incomes would be a great idea.

That we were. And the right to vote for blacks was not created or birthed in the 1960s.

A vast majority definitely lived in southern states...

I support the flat-tax rate. It's more fair than any other method could possibly be. Cuts and raises would be universal and based only on percentage of wealth.

So the rich can afford to give more in taxes. That doesn't in any way justify making them do so. They already pay a great deal of the taxes as it is. One billionaire pays several thousand times as much in taxes as the average joe.

The flat tax. Blatant and barely-concealed attempt to dramatically lower taxes on the rich even MORE and raise taxes on the poor. Very, very bad idea.

It is few, especially when you consider that most people in America are not poor. Simple.

So because 260 million have some kind of coverage the 40 that don't don't matter. No way. No one is unimportant.


Jesus. What defines a decent job? It's not like they'd pick produce in a sweltering field all day. Working retail or other entry-level jobs are not the most fun, dignified jobs in the world, but they do pay well enough that in conjunction with a token amount of government support most poor people could live with some comfort and save money for whatever sort of investment they wish, be it financial investment, education, etc.

I just can't believe you think that because they wouldn't be able to get a $25K per year job right off the bat means they'd be better off not working at all. That is stupid. That is purely stupid.

For one thing not really far away so they don't spend lots of time in transit, especially if they're single parents with young kids... that would be really, really hard on their children...

And with a much more tightly-controlled and regulated welfare system, things would be infinitely better. Not to mention, less burdensome to taxpayers.

Fundamental disagreement. The only way to improve things is to make the welfare system bigger. Regulate it well and reduce waste? Fine. But I do not think that there are nearly as large amounts of it as you imply.

See the difference is that there is solid evidence behind the things in your little list here.
anti-everything improving poverty related
tax policy, corporate tax breaks, corporations writing laws in special meetings with administration officials (like the energy industry for instance), corporate giveaways, ex-CEOs in high office, major environmental law rollbacks (helping corporations), etc, etc, etc
anti-AA, anti-poverty programs, serious tax cuts on the poor
anti-immigration policy
just plain hatred
anti-gay rights, hatred/fear
anti-reproductive rights
more hatred
4. if you could you would, and are trying your best to get rid of all those silly environmental laws that stop you. There's a reason that this administration has been called the worst environmentally in an extremely long time...
5. Again you would if you could, but can't right now because the troops are tied down in Iraq... which of course was a step on that path.
There are a lot of assumptions in there that are simply untrue. Being anti-immigration isn't hating Mexicans. Being anti-AA isn't hating Blacks. Respecting the rights of unborn children isn't hating women.

So no. Your conspiracy theories are just plain wacky lies.

The existing system is badly flawed and more government control and coverage is desperately needed. See, unlike you I think that when given a chance the government can do decent work... and as for "crippling recearch", they'd have more than enough money if they didn't spend such insane amounts advertising.
You do think that. It just so rarely happens that I don't understand why.

And, you have to advertise. That's an integral part of business, of making money. Not that you'd know that.

The Bush Administration's policy is "whatever a corporation wants, it gets" -- at least as long as it's a conservatively-run one...
How is this any different from liberal tax breaks to 'non-profit organizations' that are slanted to the left, or outright liberal activist groups?

Cutting taxes on the poorer groups (or getting rid of them alltogether) and coorspondingly raising them on high incomes would be a great idea.
Sure it would. Poor people would be DYING to get out of poverty so they can start paying taxes! What an incentive!

This is cardinal proof of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to make poor people happy. Conservatives want to make poor people not be poor.

Making poverty enjoyable and bearable will not end it. You have to kill poverty, by hard work and investment. Of course, such ideas are alien to liberals, who are headed by rich people and who want to give everyone else's money away to the poor.

Some charity. Why are there rich liberals, anyway? Obviously they don't mind it that much. It's only rich conservatives that are evil, I guess.

A vast majority definitely lived in southern states...
No shit!

The flat tax. Blatant and barely-concealed attempt to dramatically lower taxes on the rich even MORE and raise taxes on the poor. Very, very bad idea.
Wow. Suddenly, the liberal is AGAINST fairness! Hilarious! You act as though the rich don't already pay inordinately high taxes and the poor as often as not pay inordinately little!

Every post you make, you get just a little more out of this world. We ought to stop this soon.

So because 260 million have some kind of coverage the 40 that don't don't matter. No way. No one is unimportant.
No, but when 80% have it and 20% don't, I don't think it constitutes being considered a crisis. Certainly not one worth destroying our economy by instituting a failed socialist concept.

For one thing not really far away so they don't spend lots of time in transit, especially if they're single parents with young kids... that would be really, really hard on their children...
Because I see you keep continually ignoring the part of my idea where I say that

welfare is okay as a supplement to working people, not as a sole source of income.

I hope that issue is resolved. As for those who use their inability to keep their legs closed as an excuse for not working:

Deal with it. Or starve. I don't fucking care anymore. Give your kids up for adoption if you can't raise them. Stop making them if you can't raise them, because I shouldn't have to pay for that. One of the most widespread and dispicable abuses of the welfare system is people who kept having babies to ensure continued welfare support.

Fundamental disagreement. The only way to improve things is to make the welfare system bigger. Regulate it well and reduce waste? Fine. But I do not think that there are nearly as large amounts of it as you imply.
Wait a second. It's a total failure. How in the bleeding hell is making it BIGGER going to help it?

Since you used cancer as an allusion once, I will too: What you're saying is akin to telling someone that the only way they'll get better is to let their tumor grow even more!

Making that decrepit monster of a mistake larger is the very last thing we should EVER do. It's ruined enough people already. It needs to get SMALLER.

Ah God, your insanity is making me want to scream.

Oh yes, yet another post without proof. I won't stop reminding you until you pony it up. While you're at it, add in how enlarging the welfare monster will bring people out of poverty. That ought to be good.

As you can tell from the shortness of my replies, I'm getting very tired of this.

There are a lot of assumptions in there that are simply untrue. Being anti-immigration isn't hating Mexicans. Being anti-AA isn't hating Blacks. Respecting the rights of unborn children isn't hating women.

So no. Your conspiracy theories are just plain wacky lies.

Hating? There's certainly dislike among many conservatives for all those (serious) groups, but hating is stronger than that and I think I said 'hate' when I thought it was a major concern... what my focus was mostly there was policies that make those people dislike conservatives, and/or policies that (no matter your personal feelings) are things that those groups do not support and do not like your side supporting. Issues that should keep them from being Republicans, as it were.


You do think that. It just so rarely happens that I don't understand why.

And, you have to advertise. That's an integral part of business, of making money. Not that you'd know that.

Not the amount they do. The huge amounts of ads, among other things, put the lie on the statement that if we paid more fair prices for drugs the whole system would fail.

How is this any different from liberal tax breaks to 'non-profit organizations' that are slanted to the left, or outright liberal activist groups?\

For one thing there's a difference between a non-profit and a for-profit organization... and for another those groups don't write the laws... if they did Democrats would pass much more liberal legislation on a lot of issues when they are in power.

Sure it would. Poor people would be DYING to get out of poverty so they can start paying taxes! What an incentive!

This is cardinal proof of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to make poor people happy. Conservatives want to make poor people not be poor.

Making poverty enjoyable and bearable will not end it. You have to kill poverty, by hard work and investment. Of course, such ideas are alien to liberals, who are headed by rich people and who want to give everyone else's money away to the poor.

Some charity. Why are there rich liberals, anyway? Obviously they don't mind it that much. It's only rich conservatives that are evil, I guess.

People who cannot feasibly afford to pay taxes should not be forced into hardship just to pay their unfairly high share of them.

No shit!

So why argue this point?

Wow. Suddenly, the liberal is AGAINST fairness! Hilarious! You act as though the rich don't already pay inordinately high taxes and the poor as often as not pay inordinately little!

Every post you make, you get just a little more out of this world. We ought to stop this soon.

Nope. My definition of fairness includes the idea that it's fair for people with more to give more... you can't use one bar for everyone, people (and classes) are too different.


No, but when 80% have it and 20% don't, I don't think it constitutes being considered a crisis. Certainly not one worth destroying our economy by instituting a failed socialist concept.

Nobody is unimportant and the system should not fail anyone. That should be the goal -- no one slipping through the cracks and wasting their lives.

Because I see you keep continually ignoring the part of my idea where I say that

welfare is okay as a supplement to working people, not as a sole source of income.

I hope that issue is resolved. As for those who use their inability to keep their legs closed as an excuse for not working:

Deal with it. Or starve. I don't fucking care anymore. Give your kids up for adoption if you can't raise them. Stop making them if you can't raise them, because I shouldn't have to pay for that. One of the most widespread and dispicable abuses of the welfare system is people who kept having babies to ensure continued welfare support.

Better education is the best solution there. ... but wait, you don't want to FUND better education for low-income areas, you want vouchers which will help make schools WORSE for the 95 out of 100 kids who don't go to private schools! Great idea!

Wait a second. It's a total failure. How in the bleeding hell is making it BIGGER going to help it?

Since you used cancer as an allusion once, I will too: What you're saying is akin to telling someone that the only way they'll get better is to let their tumor grow even more!

Making that decrepit monster of a mistake larger is the very last thing we should EVER do. It's ruined enough people already. It needs to get SMALLER.

Ah God, your insanity is making me want to scream.

Oh yes, yet another post without proof. I won't stop reminding you until you pony it up. While you're at it, add in how enlarging the welfare monster will bring people out of poverty. That ought to be good

Within its limited applications, welfare is mostly successful. It'd be more successful without people like you trying to destroy it, but it's a great program that definitely has helped this nation.

Oh yeah, and you've gone to great lengths to prove your case, I've noticed!

And making welfare bigger will help poverty because children will get better home lives, thus increasing their chances of success in school, which can lead places. What we need now is better programs for low-income kids going to college, big government subsidies for college tuition, etc... that would make a huge dent, if more low-income people could afford college. If they didn't have to pay much and could work to make some extra money maybe larger numbers of low-income people could go, and with that would be advancement in society...

As for the parents, they should obviously be trying for work of some kind, but shouldn't lower their standards so all they try for is register jobs at part time pay...

I'm getting tired of this too. It never goes anywhere anyway. It's just fun to shoot the shit with you every once in awhile, being that our very beliefs are so totally contrasted in almost every possible way.

Shake and be friends until the next one comes up?

Probably a good idea, I'm definitely tired of it.

Interesting thread.

I forgot what the original topic was.

The French banning religious symbols in public schools.

It never changed. :) You started it to set off a arguement...

And Geno, why delete your post? Huh? What secrets did it hide?

Just two comments I thought needed to be said here.

Here you misunderstood what I meant by when I took apart that list of yours...

There are a lot of assumptions in there that are simply untrue. Being anti-immigration isn't hating Mexicans. Being anti-AA isn't hating Blacks. Respecting the rights of unborn children isn't hating women.

So no. Your conspiracy theories are just plain wacky lies.

Hating? There's certainly dislike among many conservatives for all those (serious) groups, but hating is stronger than that and I think I said 'hate' when I thought it was a major concern... what my focus was mostly there was policies that make those people dislike conservatives, and/or policies that (no matter your personal feelings) are things that those groups do not support and do not like your side supporting. Issues that should keep them from being Republicans, as it were.

And other than that all I want to say is that I disagree completely with the idea that because a group (or opinion...) is smaller, or not the majority, it is bad or wrong or should be ignored. Just because "only" 45 million working poor (read that in the paper today) don't have any health care, we should forget them because they're too lazy to get a better job?

Not at all. People who work deserve help. They contribute and thus should benefit. I still don't believe in full coverage for every single person courtesy of taxpayers though. For working people, and for people who are incapable of working due to physical disability and have no means of support, I agree that they should receive partial coverage, and enough to cover their families.

The rest? No. If you refuse to contribute to society, it isn't worth it for society to save you.

I'm still done with this, by the way.

Just wanted to show that you'd kind of misunderstood me... :)

Misunderstood? You're still frighteningly liberal.

But I love you anyway.

In a non-gay, I-don't-even-know-what-your-look-like kinda way.

That I didn't mean you hated all those groups, I mean. :)

Ah...

I do hate Hobbits, though. That's why Fittisize gets on my nerves all the time.

So I posted that response twice but you didn't read it either time? :erm:

I didn't quite get what you meant.

Issues that should keep them from being Republicans, as it were.

isn't that clear?

If I could remember the context, perhaps.

Honestly, I'd like to not remember. :)

:)

And Geno, why delete your post? Huh? What secrets did it hide?

I posted it after looking at only Page 1, without even noticing Page 2 was there and that the debate had drawn to a close, and I didn't want to revive a dead debate. :violin:

Good thinking.

Its moving forward...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/international/europe/11FRAN.html
French Assembly Votes to Ban Religious Symbols in Schools
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

Published: February 11, 2022

ARIS, Feb. 10 — The National Assembly voted by an overwhelming majority on Tuesday to ban Muslim head scarves and other religious symbols from public schools, a move that underscores the broad public support for the French secular ideal but is certain to deepen resentment among France's large Muslim population.

Advertisement

The 494-to-36 vote, with 31 abstentions, came hours after the minister of national education, Luc Ferry, said in a radio interview that the law would stretch much further than religious symbols and require all students to attend physical education classes and accept what is taught on the Holocaust and human reproduction.

Three weeks ago, Mr. Ferry, a philosopher and best-selling author, said bandannas and excessive hairiness would be banned from public schools if they were considered religious signs.

The draft law bans "ostensibly" religious signs, which have been defined by President Jacques Chirac and a government advisory commission as Islamic head scarves, Christian crosses that are too large in size and Jewish skullcaps. Sikh turbans are also likely to be included.

But the legislation also includes a lengthy preamble that demands that public schools guarantee total equality, including "coeducation of all teachings, particularly in sports and physical education." Schools, it said, are "the best tool for planting the roots of the republican idea."

On Tuesday, Mr. Ferry made clear that religious beliefs could not be used as an excuse to avoid gym or biology classes, and that questioning the veracity of the Holocaust would not be tolerated.

Mr. Ferry also said the law "will keep classrooms from being divided up into militant religious communities," noting that there had been a "spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the past three years."

In recent years, teachers have complained that some Muslim students have been so disruptive in rejecting the veracity of the Nazi slaughter of the Jews that it is impossible to teach the subject.

Teachers have also said some Muslim girls have boycotted classes on human reproduction because they are too graphic, and have demanded sexually segregated gym classes. There are also reports that male and female Muslim students have demanded prayer breaks within the standardized baccalaureate exams at the end of high school and a ban on pork in school cafeterias.

In the Europe 1 interview, Mr. Ferry did not single out Muslims for censure, but he did not have to. Most Orthodox Jewish schoolchildren who would object to mixed-sex gym and biology classes, for example, go to private Jewish schools that are already sex-segregated, keep kosher kitchens and teach the Torah. The first — and only — private Muslim high school in all of France opened last fall in Lille.

Despite France's insistence that secularism must govern French schools, there are exceptions. France spends billions of dollars a year to finance private religious schools, most of them Catholic, for example.

Private religious schools that receive state financing are required to follow the national curriculum strictly, but policing by the state is not universal.

For example, at the Merkaz Hatorah School for Orthodox Jews in the Paris suburb of Gagny, which receives state financing and was vandalized in an arson attack last November, evolution is taught as a theory, not as fact.

"We don't teach that man comes from monkeys," said Jacques Benisty, the school's deputy director, in an interview shortly after the attack.

The Catholic catechism is taught and the crucifix is hung in public schools in Alsace-Lorraine, which is exempt from France's 1905 law strictly separating church and state because the area was still in German hands when it was adopted.

Meanwhile, during a brief debate in Parliament, before the adoption of the law, Alain Bocquet, a Communist Party deputy who voted against the law, said that it would "stigmatize" citizens of immigrant origin and "set things on fire rather than calm them down."

The draft legislation now goes to the Senate, which is also expected to pass it by a wide margin when it votes on March 2.

I also saw on the news how the French government is trying to force this guy to take down a giant cross that he erected in a field. A field that he OWNED. They said something about it would increase religious tension in the area, but most people in the town said they didn't care because it was his property.

Depends on how giant I'd think... if it's too big you could go against zoning laws... :)

But I'd say that's more of an annoyance thing than anything else. I've heard of people in the US with giant crosses... usually they can leave them up but I'm sure some have been made to been taken down.

I don't know how big it was exactly, maybe 15-20 feet. They didn't really say, but that's what it looked like from the picture.