Topic: name me one thing...
started by: CatKnight
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 15 2002,06:30
name one problem in america that government has ever fixed. name one problem that they have ever sought to tackle, that they have ever fixed. I'd like to see what you guys come up with.
Posted by humanoid on Jul. 15 2002,06:34
hell i think the government causes most of the probs.9/11 attacks - IMHO used as a way to spend billions on anything the gov wants.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 15 2002,06:41
Where would we be without freeways?Umm I would nominate the interstate; not made for
commerce but transporting troops.
Say what aren't you republican?
Has the Feds ever done anything right? (july 1969)
Posted by humanoid on Jul. 15 2002,06:44
oh yeah on my last post i meant we did nothing to stop it, not directly caused it.our gov probly doesnt care about the 6000+ who died at the WTC and Pentagon.
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 15 2002,07:09
Alright ...it's late so I'm just going to spit out a few random thoughts before I turn in. No particular reasoning or order.One
The government helped stop lawsuits while still letting us keep our freedoms by forcing tobacco companies to put warnings on cigarettes like:
1.Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy
2.Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health
3.Smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth, and low birth weight
4.Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide
So that dumb-ass people who are dying from cigarettes can't sue everybody and have to pay for medical expenses out of their own pockets ...not mine.
Two
The government built hydroelectric power-plants that also served to store fresh water by using people who couldn't find other work in the 30s and 40s ...that was a good use of government programs ...at least the people had to do something useful for their money
Three
The government bailed out Chrysler to save the jobs of thousands and give a company a chance at producing some pretty decent cars for a change.
Four
The government has run a pretty successful campaign to keep counterfeit money off the streets for damn near 150 years.
Five
The government defended a woman's right to choose what she does with an unwanted pregnancy ...helped me sleep easier many times during the drunken college years.
Posted by redpanic on Jul. 15 2002,08:22
i doubt you'll find anything the government has "fixed". to state it that way, i suspect you'll never find a good answer.now, if you ask if the government has acted to reduce particular problems, you might find some answers.
i can't see how we (or the government) can eliminate in a short amount of time, problems that have taken many years to develop. no one person or governing body can do that.
even beyond that..it would take massive support from some really ballsy politicians to even approach some of the greater problems we are faced with.
moreover, how can we even identify what matters most when there are a myriad of special interest groups that continue to blast us with their propaganda.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 15 2002,23:32
| Quote |
| The government helped stop lawsuits while |
< wait, huh? >
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 15 2002,23:45
How about the WPA in the 30's that helped employ so many men desperate for work; Hoover Dam, etc.?
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 16 2002,00:43
Yeah CK ...the government helped stop lawsuits. Let me just clarify by re-quoting the first part of the article that you apparently failed to read.| Quote |
| Tobacco settlement is a done deal NEW YORK - The $206 billion tobacco deal has won unanimous support from the states, and the industry has indicated it will sign the biggest U.S. civil settlement Monday, the lead state negotiator said Friday. ''It's a great day for attorneys general,'' said Christine Gregoire, attorney general for the state of Washington and the leader of the state negotiators. ''Joe Camel and his ilk are in intensive care and will be gone by April.'' The deal is designed to resolve remaining state claims for health costs of treating sick smokers. |
<Explanation a 5 year old can understand>
You see ...by forcing the tobacco industry to settle all the remaining claims against them and label their product as hazardous the US government stopped the thousands of future lawsuits from having any legal ground to stand on (try to sue Camel for lung cancer if you get it) ...thus SOLVING the problem of tobacco companies selling a dangerous product while protecting the rights of smokers and the rights of tobacco farmers. I see this as something the government actually took actions to solve.
</Explanation a 5 year old can understand>
I mean, can you possibly find a more pro-government/anti-tobacco article to try and use to prove my pro-government/anti-tobacco point wrong?
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 16 2002,04:24
uh, so tell me again, what did they fix?
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 16 2002,04:27
They fixed the Nazis and the Japanese for starters.
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 16 2002,04:44
| Quote (CatKnight @ 15 July 2002,20:24) |
| uh, so tell me again, what did they fix? |
You see ...once upon a time there were many people who would suck the smoke from burning leaves into their lungs and then complain that they felt yucky. They would want money from the people that sold them the leaves that they lit on fire because they felt like it was the leaf sellers fault that they now were feeling yucky. More and more people wanted to get money from the leaf selling people and the rest of the people ended up having to pay the costs of getting this money. Soon the government people saw a problem and stepped in and and decided that the leaf selling people should give money to all the people that were feeling yucky but put a message on their leaves that told people they will feel yucky too if they sucked in any more leaf smoke ...and if they did then they can't ask the leaf selling people for any more money from now on. The problem was solved. And the leaf sellers and the leaf smoke suckers lived happily ever after.
....until there were stuipd Truth.com commercials ...but that's another story
goodnight
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 16 2002,04:53
Now if they would just do that with pot....
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 16 2002,06:03
| Quote (forumwhore @ 15 July 2002,20:53) |
| Now if they would just do that with pot.... |
Didn't we already do that topic? I think we decided that it's not worth the money that would need to be spent to develop, regulate and enforce a taxable pot economy ...and the ATF people didn't want to change their name to PATF.
Besides, upper middle class white people aren't dying from pot so it's not really a problem that we should concern ourselves with at this juncture.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 16 2002,06:08
so, uh, what did they fix? people still smoke, the cigarette companies already lost billions, it seems like a lose-lose situation to me...
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 16 2002,12:25
CK's reasoning, apparently, is that if the problem isn't 100% completely fixed then it's no help at all.some problems are intractable. that doesn't mean you can't reduce their severity.
some things the US government has done:
Taught your ass to read, write and add. If they hadn't done this, 90% of you wouldn't be able to even type "the government can't do anything right" into the computer.
Protected your ass from a lot of nasty people. They can't catch 'em all - nobody ever will - but there's a lot less criminals around than there would be without government. No smart ass "but they wouldn't be criminals if there was no government" replies, please; you know damn well what I mean.
Established and enforced fair trade practices. Not perfectly - business is just too complex to get it PERFECT - but without government involvement, The Market would be absolute chaos. Capitalism is a good economic system with many benefits, but it is not self-regulating. No government involvement in The Market = total chaos.
Built the biggest and best highway system this world has even seen. You hate gasoline taxes right up until you're booming across the middle of the desert on a moonlit night on four lanes of perfectly smooth asphalt stretching out to the horizon for $1.59 a gallon... cheapest gas available anywhere.
Got us to the Moon. This is the l33t3st thing human beings have ever done. I don't want to hear that private companies are the ones who really did it; the program was financed by the government, designed by government engineers, managed by government employees, and flown by military pilots. If only they'd do it again... we could look at our paychecks and feel like we got our money's worth for once. If they're gonna take it anyway they may was well use it for something cool
edit: does anyone find anything ironic about the fact that a CONSERVATIVE is saying the government sucks ass and needs to go, and a LIBERAL is saying it's cool? It's like a mirror image of the 60's.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 16 2002,17:01
Well, the basic premis of all conservatism is that government = evil, so I can see why they would want to get rid of it. But government = people in this country. If you think government = evil, then people = evil. Pretty pessimistic attitude if you ask me.I know one problem the government fixed. Money. We don't have to exchange our money for different money everytime we cross a state border. That fixed/prevented a LOT of problems. There you go, can't argue that one
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 16 2002,19:44
oh well DSL turned back into ignorant-prop0ganda-dude again. it was fun while it lasted anyway.| Quote |
| Taught your ass to read, write and add. If they hadn't done this, 90% of you wouldn't be able to even type "the government can't do anything right" into the computer. |
the government hasn't always run the schools, ya know. in fact, I believe people did have the ability to read and write before the united states federal government stepped in and invented written language...
| Quote |
| Protected your ass from a lot of nasty people. They can't catch 'em all - nobody ever will - but there's a lot less criminals around than there would be without government. No smart ass "but they wouldn't be criminals if there was no government" replies, please; you know damn well what I mean |
that is something local governments are supposed to do. the federal government is pretty bad at it.
| Quote |
| Established and enforced fair trade practices. Not perfectly - business is just too complex to get it PERFECT - but without government involvement, The Market would be absolute chaos. Capitalism is a good economic system with many benefits, but it is not self-regulating. No government involvement in The Market = total chaos. |
the market doesn't need government to be organized. by your statement that capitalism is not self regulating, I conclude that you know NOTHING about economics. Please ignore any statements DSL makes regarding economics from now on.
| Quote |
| Built the biggest and best highway system this world has even seen. You hate gasoline taxes right up until you're booming across the middle of the desert on a moonlit night on four lanes of perfectly smooth asphalt stretching out to the horizon for $1.59 a gallon... cheapest gas available anywhere. |
gas is cheap because the people (corporations) won't allow the government to tax it like they do in europe. in other words, gas is still cheap because of LESS government. as for highways, again, that is interstate trade stuff that the government is supposed to do.
[quote[Got us to the Moon. This is the l33t3st thing human beings have ever done. I don't want to hear that private companies are the ones who really did it; the program was financed by the government, designed by government engineers, managed by government employees, and flown by military pilots. If only they'd do it again... we could look at our paychecks and feel like we got our money's worth for once. If they're gonna take it anyway they may was well use it for something cool[/quote]
you have obviously lost track of the topic, because this has nothing to do with fixing social problems. it seems that your knowledge of history doesn't even go back to the previous paragraph...
| Quote |
| Well, the basic premis of all conservatism is that government = evil, |
no, that is just a consequence of our belief in individual freedom, which is severely hampered by BIG government.
| Quote |
| If you think government = evil, then people = evil. |
um, yeah you didn't really think that through did you.
| Quote |
| I know one problem the government fixed. Money. We don't have to exchange our money for different money everytime we cross a state border. That fixed/prevented a LOT of problems. There you go, can't argue that one |
treasuries and mints changers were originally private banks though. i saw it on the history channel
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 16 2002,20:16
"name one problem" etc. Your thread was open.It was not confined to social ills.
You look for trouble, don't you?
I am liberal and I love living here
and I like a strong military.
Smoke pot and then smoke the fucking terrorists.
and then watch HBO. It's the American way.
Posted by jim on Jul. 16 2002,20:17
CatKnight really is a jack ass, just for the sake of being a jack ass...wow... I swear this is the first time I've noticed it. Although I've never really liked the guy, I at least thought of him as level headed... But wow... Man. All I can say is wow.
He really is a jack-ass.
Being in the tax bracket I'm in, I vote Republican, but CKs view on politics are fucking _way_ off base. And for no other reason than being a jackass. I mean, why else start this topic, and then argue every single point mentioned???
wow.
/enlightened
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 16 2002,20:25
I value CK's presence here.I try to attack ideas and not the person.
I know I'm not perfect.
I have to show up at webhost's and I don't know
what will happen.
Why has not anything happened?
He don't take no shit and I wonder if I gave him some
somewhere.
We all sit and type on this thing and every so often,
someone has to act physically.
I admit that frankly I am afraid of talking with him.
What is wrong?
He does not allow illusions.
He will say the exact thing that I avoid.
I know that I have stumbled badly on the tech side of Detnet while I have succeeded on the social part.
What is going on now?
I will do this thing. I have no choice.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 16 2002,20:34
| Quote (forumwhore @ 16 July 2002,15:25) |
| I value CK's presence here. |
why??
| Quote |
I try to attack ideas and not the person. |
now if only CK would try to do that....
| Quote |
| He don't take no shit and I wonder if I gave him some somewhere. |
i have yet to see CK admit that he is wrong even once.
Posted by jim on Jul. 16 2002,20:35
Was that supposed to be a riddle or some shit?
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 16 2002,20:39
Dys, it is good to hear from you. Sometimes you are worth your weight in gold.
Umm, I highjacked the thread d00d.
I don't know if CK has ever admitted to being wrong,
but I will admit to it constantly.
That would be the learning curve.
In order to find out what's right, I have to know what is wrong and there is nothing like experience as a teacher.
Dear Detnet, I suck but I am learning with both eyes open.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 16 2002,20:43
Jim, please be precise, Sir.
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jul. 16 2002,20:43
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 July 2002,13:44) | ||
oh well DSL turned back into ignorant-prop0ganda-dude again. it was fun while it lasted anyway.
the government hasn't always run the schools, ya know. in fact, I believe people did have the ability to read and write before the united states federal government stepped in and invented written language... |
Do you fucking read? Do you? There's a goddamn reason he said 90%. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your bullshit after this.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 16 2002,20:45
| Quote (jim @ 16 July 2002,15:17) |
| Being in the tax bracket I'm in, I vote Republican, but CKs view on politics are fucking _way_ off base. And for no other reason than being a jackass. I mean, why else start this topic, and then argue every single point mentioned??? |
seriously?
it took you this long to notice that?
O.o
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 16 2002,21:08
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 July 2002,15:44) |
| the market doesn't need government to be organized. by your statement that capitalism is not self regulating, I conclude that you know NOTHING about economics. Please ignore any statements DSL makes regarding economics from now on. |
Without regulations and structure, pure capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies & trusts. Capitalism is self regualting in terms of prices and competition, but what happens when the competition goes away?
That's one thing the federal government fixed. Antimonopoly and antitrust laws.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 16 2002,21:11
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 July 2002,15:44) |
| the government hasn't always run the schools, ya know. in fact, I believe people did have the ability to read and write before the united states federal government stepped in and invented written language... |
I believe he was trying to say the government did right by letting anyone have FREE EDUCATION.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 16 2002,21:16
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 July 2002,15:44) |
| gas is cheap because the people (corporations) won't allow the government to tax it like they do in europe. in other words, gas is still cheap because of LESS government. as for highways, again, that is interstate trade stuff that the government is supposed to do. |
Gas is cheap not because the corporations won't allow taxes, but because the government wants the car industry to thrive, and creates subsidies for gas. The government doesn't need corporate permission. At least not yet...
Just because they are supposed to do the highways means that they can't be praised for a good job? If I had a car, I could drive it anywhere in the 48 in a reasonable amout of time (depending on distance) because they did what they were supposed to.
Edit: I posted 3 times in a row, so I could single out specific points more easily. But scroll the screen until you can see all three at once. Lookit Megaman dance!
Posted by demonk on Jul. 16 2002,21:25
Bozeman, that avatar of yours is funny ass shit to watch when listening to "Without Me" by Eminem(sp?). Just wanted to mention that 
Posted by demonk on Jul. 16 2002,21:32
| Quote |
| treasuries and mints changers were originally private banks though. i saw it on the history channel |
Your point being? The government still setup a monetary system, which they still regulate, that makes buying and selling goods and services between the 50 states easy and very, very, very painless to all citizens. Before they did this, each state was printing their own money. And each state valued its own money more than the other states'. The government (after the Constitution was ratified) stepped in and said "Hold up there! We can't do this. We will have ONE system of money, and it will be the same value in all States. And you States can't print your own money anymore". Seems to me they solved a problem there CK. What prize do I win?
/me hopes it is a chance to kick CK in the nutz
Edit: i Kam Spekk godf
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 17 2002,00:02
| Quote (demonk @ 16 July 2002,17:25) |
| Bozeman, that avatar of yours is funny ass shit to watch when listening to "Without Me" by Eminem(sp?). Just wanted to mention that |
Thanks demonk, but I think CK brought that point up as an interesting aside. You see, it is interesting, but does not actually add to the arguement, or disprove anything. It was a kind of FYI thing. Of course, that's just a guess.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 17 2002,01:01
I'm confused. Are you just being funny and sarcastic, or did you quote the wrong post?
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 17 2002,01:37
Looking it over, it is confusing. Let me clarify. The quote is for the thanks, but the sentences underneath are a response to your reaction to CK. I truly believe he did not mean that as a refuation. How could he? It doesn't make sense.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 17 2002,05:53
FYI I didn't make this thread with the presumption that the government hasn't fixed anything I just wanted some opinions. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Hey Jim, why am I a jackass? Is it because I flame people without giving any counter-argument or explanation, like you? Or is it because I don't agree with what everyone says, like you? Or maybe it's because I'm just a total prick...like you!
btw, every post in this thread has either been an argument or a comment...except yours. I guess that makes you a troll, eh?
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jul. 17 2002,06:38
Actually I'd say it's more because you are an arrogant, insecure fuck who isn't man enough to admit when he's wrong. The alternative is you are too deluded/stupid to notice when you're wrong.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 17 2002,06:48
Beastie, you haven't been here long enough to understand the dynamics of the community.However, you prick;
You are dead on.
I am truly sorry CK,
but saying you're wrong once in a while can go a long ways.
I care about you very much (emails you don't return) and I like your presence here.
What is your purpose in looking for trouble?
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 17 2002,09:20
actually I think CK is catching on. never underestimate the intelligence of a scientist.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 17 2002,09:48
(i will wait for him)
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 17 2002,17:20
I started this thread with two things in mind that the government HAS fixed and I wanted to see if you guys could get them before flaming me to death. I guess not. demonk did think of the treasury department one which I didn't think of so he gets a cookie.btw I'm not going to admit I'm wrong just because someone makes a good argument that I can't counter. You can persuede me to consider your point of view more closely by presenting good arguments though. The only reason I would admit to being wrong is if I made a flat-out mistake or posted some bad info or something.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 17 2002,21:17
| Quote (CatKnight @ 16 July 2002,11:44) |
| oh well DSL turned back into ignorant-prop0ganda-dude again. it was fun while it lasted anyway. |
CK on his not-so-high horse again. You were expecting people to not flame you, when you flame others? Of course people are going to flame you! This is DETNET! You've been here long enough to know that every thread is a flamewar waiting to happen.
And I think the anitmonopoly-antitrust point I brought up is a valid thing the government has "fixed."
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 17 2002,21:35
there's a difference though.CK: you're a fool! here's why!
DSL: *grumble*
Jim: you're a moron!
...
CK: *grumble*
as for the antitrust thing, looking at several examples of where government has intervened and failed (california power), and cases where the government should have intervened but didn't (microsoft), leads me to believe that the government has certainly not "fixed" the problem of monopolies.
Posted by jim on Jul. 17 2002,22:23
Actually I called you a Jackass. And here's why!™ Even though I already stated this.All along I always felt people were flaming you for no reason (not including the 1,000's of one sentence stupid ass topics you create), but now I see why. You say stupid shit for no other reason than to stir up trouble. Which makes you the troll, by definition.
So yeah, suck it.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 17 2002,22:54
| Quote (CatKnight @ 17 July 2002,16:35) |
| CK: you're a fool! here's why! DSL: *grumble* Jim: you're a moron! ... CK: *grumble* as for the antitrust thing, looking at several examples of where government has intervened and failed (california power), and cases where the government should have intervened but didn't (microsoft), leads me to believe that the government has certainly not "fixed" the problem of monopolies. |
surprise surprise, CK is putting words in other people's mouths yet again...
regarding microsoft; the government had been building evidence for that case < since 1992 >, so they weren't intervening for a reason.
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 18 2002,06:12
| Quote (CatKnight @ 15 July 2002,22:08) |
| so, uh, what did they fix? people still smoke, the cigarette companies already lost billions, it seems like a lose-lose situation to me... |
(sorry for being late and all ...I was away for a few days working so I can pay even more taxes)
Ok ...there was an out of control problem of people being able to sue tobacco companies for the cancer that their own choices caused. The government had to find a way to stop the people from trying to sue the tobacco companies without infringing on their right to smoke (so they couldn't just outloaw smoking and ban tobacco). They came up with a fairly reasonable way to fine tobacco companies for trying to hide the problems their product can cause, prevent future lawsuits, protect freedoms and protect the future earnings of the tobacco companies (they paid a heafty price, but now they are in the clear forever ....huge upside for tobacco). I see it as win win.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 18 2002,16:37
| Quote (CatKnight @ 17 July 2002,13:35) |
| as for the antitrust thing, looking at several examples of where government has intervened and failed (california power), and cases where the government should have intervened but didn't (microsoft), leads me to believe that the government has certainly not "fixed" the problem of monopolies. |
Sorry, I just couldn't bite my lip and not address this.
The real cause of trouble down in California was Enron, not the government. They were just screwing over the state and trying to get more money. (I know it's more complicated then that, but that is the bottem of what happened)
As for MS, you can thank Dubya for that one (actually, didn't matter who would have won the election, MS covered both sides
). Anyone else find it odd that the government dropped it's punishment procedings after the administration change? Could there have been some pressure from high up in the new administration to leave MS alone? That's not a failing of the government, that's the failing of our leader. The laws are there to punish MS, but they aren't being exercised.Just had to address those points. And thanks for the cookie, it was tasty. Now, do you care to share with us the two problems you already had in mind when you started this thread?
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 19 2002,19:30
slavery and jim crowe laws were the big ones I came up with. I'm surprised none of you socially-enlightned liberals thought of that one. i guess you're all a bunch of racists, huh?
Posted by demonk on Jul. 19 2002,20:50
How could you say we are racist? Seriously, I'd like to hear your thought process that arrived at that conclusion. I am very far from racist. I'm a huge supporter of equal rights (not handouts though), for all nationalities, creeds, origins, and genders. So I'd like to know how you can conclude I'm a racist.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 19 2002,21:09
I think he meant it as a joke...I didn't even think of slavery, because it's still around. Need proof? Check out who the working poor in the inner cities are composed of. Slavery isn't gone, it's changed.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 19 2002,22:35
well you are changing your definition of slavery while comparing the two situations so your argument is moot really. you can't compare slaves in bondage forced to pic cotton fields or else get whipped to blacks in the inner cities who are not in bondage, not in forced labor, and are free to do whatever they want. just because the government gives them money to buy crack, well, that is their decision isn't it?slavery still exists in some parts of the world but not in the united states
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 20 2002,00:03
Aside: isn't it amazing how CK didn't even answer my post.. 
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 20 2002,04:41
| Quote (CatKnight @ 19 July 2002,14:35) |
| well you are changing your definition of slavery |
Call it...creative license. I didn't mean ACTUAL slavery, but it's similar. They don't really have a choice other than poor or crime.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 20 2002,06:46
lol you don't get creative license when we are talking about facts! see, this is why i dislike liberal thinking very much so. you put a spin on everything.oh, i do agree with you though. most of them don't have a choice. i'll give you two guesses as to who took their freedom to choose away.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 20 2002,07:04
Rich white old men? That's my first guess
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 20 2002,15:42
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!(bells and sirens go off)
Demonk, you win.... A COOKIE!!!!
(crowd goes wild)
Oh, and btw CK, if I can't have "spin" then why are all us liberals "racist" for not mentioning slavery? You took a liscence there for that joke. Are we not allowed to be funny? Are we not allowed to see things from a different angle? You seem just like Bill O' Reiley, proclaiming a "no spin zone" when in fact he distorts issues just as much, if not MORE than other media.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 20 2002,17:08
oohhh, so you were simply joking when you said "I didn't even think of slavery, because it's still around...", and in actuality you agreed with me? oh ok, my mistake.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 21 2002,13:50
| Quote |
| (Bozeman) Slavery isn't gone, it's changed. |
| Quote |
| (Catknight) well you are changing your definition of slavery while... |
I thought it neccesary to change the definition, becuase the nature if it has changed. It wasn't really a joke, per se, it was seeing things from a different perspective.
I used up a whole bottle of windex cleaning the sarcasm off my monitor for your last post CK, thanks a lot.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 21 2002,16:33
There was a Saudi Princess in FL who was recently charged with slavery for abusing servants, but she went back to Saudi Arabia and will probably not return for trial.Slavery exists in some parts of the world legally, but not here. These are places like Sudan, where Wahaabist Islamics are still enslaving others.
Anyone who claims it still exists (legally) in present day US, please provide cites.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 21 2002,18:25
*sigh*It's not really slavery, it's LIKE slavery. Blacks are still not social equals.
- According to a study conducted by the economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Galloway, and David C. Clingaman, The average income for a black american is 61% less per year than the average white american. This is the same percentage difference as it was in 1880. Blacks have been on the bottom rung of the economic ladder the whole time. Want more?
- About 20% of black males age 16-24 are neither in school not working, compared with 9% white males.
- Black unemployment has been roughly twice white unemployment since 1954, despite the majority population being white.
Slavery may not be here in PERSON, but we've got a legacy left behind.
(facts courtesy Stupid White Men by Michael Moore)
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 21 2002,20:32
| Quote (CatKnight @ 19 July 2002,17:35) |
| you can't compare slaves in bondage forced to pic cotton fields or else get whipped to blacks in the inner cities who are not in bondage, not in forced labor, and are free to do whatever they want. |
oh surprise surprise, CK is over-generalizing.
actually CK, they have more in common than is obvious.
most inner city blacks are not free to do shit really, because they either:
a. have little or no education or
b. have been the victims of domestic or racial violence.
don't believe me?
buy a round trip ticket to miami and hang around the poor districts for a few hours.
by then, you won't be singing the same tune.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jul. 22 2002,01:13
| Quote (Bozeman @ 21 July 2002,10:25) |
| (facts courtesy Stupid White Men by Michael Moore) |
Michael Moore can hardly be called "factual" - he's one of the sloppiest intellectuals I've ever read. He's the epitome of the stereotypical arrogant leftist, the kind of guy real liberals despise because his antics make us all look like a bunch of clowns... yes, Michael, you're right. I have sold out to corporate interests and become a Eurocentric jingoist bigot. Why don't you go die or something?
You want some good books on liberal politics, check out anything by James Carville. He's hilarious ("people thought Bill Clinton had a picture of me with a sheep or something") and he makes damn good arguments.
Michael Moore picks out whatever statistics suit him and argues from there. Carville does his research and makes his arguments from indisputable facts. He has to- his wife is a Republican lol
"Firstly, I am going try to keep my sense of humor because that is what served me well; secondly, I am going to fight like hell; and thirdly, I am going to try not to call anyone a motherfucker on television."
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 22 2002,02:04
bozeman, without even challenging the accuracy of your facts, that still has nothing to do with slavery. you even call to attention "unemployment" as being somehow related to slavery, lol.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 22 2002,02:27
| Quote (Bozeman @ 21 July 2002,13:25) |
| It's not really slavery, it's LIKE slavery. Blacks are still not social equals. |
CK often accuses others of not reading his posts.
J'accuse!
DSL: Yeah, Moore does present a pretty one sided arguement, but his facts are from good sources. If Moore says something, I take it with a grain of salt, but he never outright LIES. I used his facts to show how blacks are still not social equals, thus creating a corrolary to slavery. It's not REAL slavery, but black america's situation has so many similarities it's appalling.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 22 2002,03:02
Mind if I don't spin your nipple nuts?Now I have to put the cursor on all your avatars.
Nice job, Dys.
You rock and stuff.
heh.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 22 2002,03:21
| Quote (forumwhore @ 21 July 2002,22:02) |
| Mind if I don't spin your nipple nuts? Now I have to put the cursor on all your avatars. Nice job, Dys. You rock and stuff. heh. |
try doing it with necromancer's avatar
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 22 2002,03:27
I knew about that one.That's what I meant.
Now I have to do all of them...
If I could just stop laughing long enough
(just what is a nipple nut?)
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 22 2002,04:19
| Quote (forumwhore @ 21 July 2002,22:27) |
| just what is a nipple nut? |
it's a term from a british sitcom called 'red dwarf'
get a file-swapping service and search 'red dwarf' as a movie and download one and watch it.
you'll get the general idea quickly.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jul. 22 2002,04:27
| Quote (Bozeman @ 21 July 2002,18:27) |
| DSL: Yeah, Moore does present a pretty one sided arguement, but his facts are from good sources. If Moore says something, I take it with a grain of salt, but he never outright LIES. I used his facts to show how blacks are still not social equals, thus creating a corrolary to slavery. It's not REAL slavery, but black america's situation has so many similarities it's appalling. |
I know plenty of black people that would smack your cracka ass for that lol
If you want a much better perspective on What's Wrong With Black People, go rent some Chris Rock DVD's. He has the advantage of actually being a "person of color"... and amazingly enough, he's smart! What a rare trait in a black person, huh?
Michael Moore can say/do anything he wants in his quest to be Nice Massa... me, I just treat them as fellow human beings. From what I hear, that's pretty rare... white people usually feel sorry for the po' dumb niggers... they get all uncomfortable and shit 'cause they don't want to offend the po' dumb helpless black man...
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 22 2002,04:47
Dys, thanks but I'll pass.This time.
DSL, your posts are amazing but they still have dead 'tars.
Why are there not more "colored" people here?
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 22 2002,05:17
The government also gave women the right to vote ...so I guess you not thinking of that one makes you sexist doesn't it CK?Can I get a cookie for that?
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 22 2002,21:33
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 22 2002,21:38
