Board of education claims intellectual ownership of pupils' school work... ehh what??

[Stevinator]

Maybe I confused you with Techno? An easy mistake to make, trust me.
First, as cretinous as I consider Mehlman to be, he didn't say anything about a "Southern Strategy" nor anything beyond 'some Republicans didn't reach out'. If you don't get why someone would grovel for ethnic votes from a racist organization, then you're not a true Democrat.

I gave it a bit and couldn't find the transcript, but one of the articles said he said it was wrong to try and benefit from racial polarization.

Second, even if the GOP <DID> suddenly decide to shut its trap in hopes of scooping up some disaffected Democrat racists, it certainly doesn't quantify the wholesale lie told by the Left about the GOP being the party of racism, "Bull" Connor, and all the rest. The Democrat Party was the traditional party of racism, IS the current party of racism, and will likely always BE the party of racism as long as it exists. The GOP, for all their iniquity, are the party that doesn't care what color your skin is as long as you have cash and can have your labor exploited.

Hmm, We're not far apart. Historically there's no doubt that the dems were the anti-civil rights party. Then when the christian coalition found the GOP, the south flipped. I don't believe for a second that one election made the south suddenly stop being racist. I think it is clear that the GOP plays on fears of the other, though now it's more about hispanics than blacks. I also think that over time, the us vs them vote is becoming less and less of an issue and more and more the crazies are the religious folk. Believe it or not, that's progress, of sorts.

Anyway, the point is those old democrats aren't the same people as today's democrats. Heck, most of them are old or dead, but demographically, those people are voting republican now. I don't think it's fair to blame someone for their father's sins, but I think there is a little residual racial animosity out there. I've heard differing accounts of how much.


That said, there's truth in your statement that only one party supports treating the races differently (assuming they are citizens anyway). That's the Dems. Affirmative action flies in the face of the colorblind society that MLK wanted. That's the one real law I can think of that actually treats people of different race differently. Is that enough to say the Dems are the party of racists? i don't think so. I know you think a lot of other positions are racist too, but i can't give you those.

It's not fair to say that welfare is racist because black people get trapped. I'm not sure I can agree with that. Those people would not be better off without it. It's also annoying because we don't distribute welfare based on race, but on income. It's the same specious thinking that you use to "prove" that abortions are ethnically cleansing blacks. I just don't buy it. in fact, until you actually make the claims, I won't even bother listing the silly things I've heard makes dems racist over the years. You get that one. Treating people differently based on race. There aren't others.

I like Ann. She's hilariously pro-queer, and it ties the fascist Left into knots because they're really quite anti-queer.

Really? That's surprising. They hinted at something in your video (her *** friends), but I felt like I didn't get the whole story.

Even more amusingly, she crossed swords with a comedian named Joe DeRosa on RedEye a couple of nights back - DeRosa is a mild leftist, of Lebanese heritage, and an ardent Atheist - you'd like him.

Would i like him because he's a leftist, an ardent atheist or because of my fondness for tabbouleh? (probably spelling that wrong)

Well, DeRosa said that the religious assertions by Ray Lewis are a sham,

Well, he may not be lying about his faith, he might just be an idiot. He's not famous for a nobel prize you know.

and Coulter contended that they're sincere. It devolved into DeRosa claiming that honoring the moral positivism of Christianity in a formal setting like a court is no different from claiming "the Devil made me do it". Coulter asked why someone can't claim that "the Devil made me do it", and DeRosa was disdainful - he asked if she thought that constituted a valid defense. She said something to the effect of "Sure: Satanic motivation. Guilty as charged. Execution. NEXT!"

i don't get what she's saying either. is it a valid defense or not? If they're possessed is the appropriate justice death to the person possessed? I feel like he was right.

Found it. Starts about 14:25 - I think they "catch" her about her allies in the queer Republican ranks as well.

First off, thanks for that, the part you're describing is at like 34, not 14. But I listened and i have to say, that show was awful. the announcer was REALLY annoying and whenever someone made something close to a real point they quickly ran away from it and made a joke. I'm not sure how this show is entertaining in any way, shape or form. You should stick to that show about OJ's lawyer's kids you're always rambling on about.

DeRosa was flabbergasted, and stuttered things about reality and thinking this was a news show. That's why I like her.

I could see how the lack of being able to make a cogent argument might appeal to you. Birds of a feather and whatnot.

We differ again. I'm not anti-affirmative action, nor am I allowed to be, but I definitely realize that things have gone so far as to be counter-productive. When I hear talk about how admitting women to the military will neither degrade the force nor will be supported by quotas and the whole shebang, I want to beat someone's head in.

Allowed to be? You can have any stance you want. Free country.

And as far as letting women in the military, they're already there. i think they should have to meet the same physical standards as men if they're going to go into combat, but I don't have a problem with them going into combat. I oppose a quota.


That reminded me of the fireman exam. Did that "scandal" make it to the national media? If not here goes. The chicago firefighters have to pass a test to be hired--it's a cushy job if you don't die from it, so it's very sought after. A ton of people take the test (written), but not a lot pass. Recently they had a problem, no blacks passed the test. The blacks got mad and sued, and they had to throw out the test. So now we hire dumb firefighters because the smart blacks didn't apply that year (or found something better). Anyway, now the physical test is being challenged by women who are suing and saying it's not fair that they have to carry stuff to be a firefighter. The Chicago fire department is exactly what happens when we take this stuff too far.

Anyway, the moral of the story is after you complain loudly about these things on facebook, it's probably not a good idea to send the people you're arguing with (who live in chicago) candles for their anniversary.

Here's a far better discussion of it than I could ever provide. Colonel West is DA MAN! Well, not really, because the Socialist Democrats are the Establishment, but he <should be> DA MAN!

That link is forever thinking.

You kidder. You've NEVER voted for the GOP.

There were Republicans on my ballot this past November.

[BobCox2]

Jmerv might consider "anarchist" a pejorative term, but I certainly don't; I am an anarchist.

Welcome the the OTF
KrimLjubljana

[stillman]

Take taxes as an easy example. Either you pay taxes and are part of society, getting all the benefits, or you get the H*** out.

"all" the benefits? This is wrong. I pay taxes, much of it goes to the health system here in Canada, and I don't benefit at all from that system. I stay healthy, and all my money goes to people who lean on the system (because it's there, and it's easier to enjoy self-abuse and get rewarded for it with round the clock nursing care than to take care of your health). I haven't called the police, ever, yet I'm paying for them too. I don't drive, btw, so I'm not using the roads. I'm not getting any benefits at all. Nice guys finish last, I guess.

It's not fair to say that welfare is racist because black people get trapped. I'm not sure I can agree with that. Those people would not be better off without it.

Race aside, you should look into the research on welfare, before and after. People are better off without it. Why on Earth would somebody work and gain skills when they can get money for not working? But this is just one part (albeit, my crudely explained one) of why welfare achieves the exact opposite of what it proposes.

Even if you are a survival expert, you would be jailed & executed <IF NOT FOR> the Constitution; pretending as you do that anarchy is a viable system is, well, nothing short of stupid. Stupid because believing that "safety in numbers" will somehow safeguard liberty has been disproved repeatedly. Even America the isolated can't ignore the outside world, and we were involved in numerous wars because we recognized that fact - not because we're Statist meddlers.

That's why I can't consider myself a "true" Libertarian like you - there's too many nutbags that learned nothing from the Articles of Confederation and other experiments in anarchy. Open borders, (unnatural) monopolies, no national defense, the supremacy of self-ordering systems, abuse of common goods, the belief that a lack of offense will not invite aggression... heck, there's so many things to laugh at you for that I can't begin to name them all.

Something tells me the experiments in anarchy you mention aren't really examples of anarchy at all. Of course, if a switch was flicked tomorrow, it wouldn't work because there is nowhere near enough critical mass, and there never was. How can "safety in numbers" be disproved repeatedly if there were never high numbers, ever?

[krischan]

"all" the benefits? This is wrong. I pay taxes, much of it goes to the health system here in Canada, and I don't benefit at all from that system. I stay healthy, and all my money goes to people who lean on the system (because it's there, and it's easier to enjoy self-abuse and get rewarded for it with round the clock nursing care than to take care of your health). I haven't called the police, ever, yet I'm paying for them too. I don't drive, btw, so I'm not using the roads. I'm not getting any benefits at all. Nice guys finish last, I guess.

That's because the young support the old and the strong support the weak. Once you are old, you will probably need somebody to help you and that help will probably cost more than the amount of taxes and fees you are paying then or even more than your pension and all your property... and that's not even considering those things which you cannot buy for money.

[Stevinator]

Race aside, you should look into the research on welfare, before and after. People are better off without it. Why on Earth would somebody work and gain skills when they can get money for not working? But this is just one part (albeit, my crudely explained one) of why welfare achieves the exact opposite of what it proposes.

That's why i have advocated for making it temporary (because I do support a social safety net, but i also agree that we've created a perpetual welfare system), and I'm okay with requiring that able workers on welfare look for jobs, and that it should scale up in such a way that it incents you to find some work.

For instance, if you're not working you should take home less than if you're grossly underemployed, but working below the poverty line. As you earn more income through work, we'd want to make sure that making more money puts you in a better position than making less. That's why of these entitlement systems (and many are redundant), unemployment strikes me as what should be the basis for what welfare should be like. I still think it should taper off, instead of being a flat amount and then stop. Tapering off adds a little more pressure to find work each payment, whereas a flat amount encourages you to wait to take a job until the last payment.

Combining these programs (unemployment, food stamps, welfare, housing, etc. into one single program would give us a more transparent look at what they are costing us, reduce duplicative efforts and put more emphasis on what they're trying to accomplish (and what they should be trying to accomplish).


Having a safety net actually does smooth out the business cycle a bit, so it benefits all of us, even if we never use it. Perpetual welfare hurts everyone, not just the people on it.

[nurman]

"all" the benefits? This is wrong. I pay taxes, much of it goes to the health system here in Canada, and I don't benefit at all from that system. I stay healthy, and all my money goes to people who lean on the system (because it's there, and it's easier to enjoy self-abuse and get rewarded for it with round the clock nursing care than to take care of your health). I haven't called the police, ever, yet I'm paying for them too. I don't drive, btw, so I'm not using the roads. I'm not getting any benefits at all. Nice guys finish last, I guess.

[stillman]

That's because the young support the old and the strong support the weak.

This provides incentive for people to become weak on purpose so they can get free support. This, in turn, cripples the strong. I wish I had a brighter outcome to report. Also, people have been growing old and dying for eons. Death by age related illness is not murder.

Once you are old, you will probably need somebody to help you...

Diet and exercise can nearly eliminate that probability so you are chopping wood and swimming when you're 90. If there wasn't a socialist system in place (here), more people would give fruits and vegetables a try, or else they would have to take responsibility for neglecting their health. Be honest; do you and your kids (if any) want responsibility for the health of random party animals you've never even seen before? Maybe their families (instead of yours) should pay their medical bills. It's silly. I'm forced to "love" them, lol.

...and that help will probably cost more than the amount of taxes and fees you are paying then or even more than your pension and all your property.

Very true. So don't you see a problem with this? You're describing not just me, but the majority of individuals. So it's impossible for this outrageous system to exist without printing money or generating massive debt.

All of this seems so obvious. Let's say prescribing a mound of "feel good" gold at the foot of someone's bed will increase their life expectancy by a day or two statistically. Therefore, we are morally compelled to provide that mound of gold so people don't die a day earlier than normal? Well, of course you will say "no" to that silliness, so let me ask, how many extra years/days should be forcibly paid for by others?

Before anyone plays their strawman card, I must reveal that

Spoiler

the "feel good" gold is real. I didn't make that example up. If a patient's...ugh....eyes or something feel a bit better by sending him to the Superbowl, then guess what we do?

Spoiler

we send him to the Superbowl. I'm not kidding.

And nurman, I don't get that joke at all even though I have seen some of the Saw movies.

[Technomancer]

I think Nurman was saying that you sound like just the kind of a-hole that would wake up handcuffed to a toilet in a Saw movie.

[stillman]

Doesn't Jigsaw go after people who exploit others, pointing out the truth while doing so? It's not my fault that truth is harsh.

[BobCox2]

I like Stillman!

Harsh truths