PDA

View Full Version : Political Correctness is Good



Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 04:21 PM
I have grown more than tired of hearing how Political Correctness has destroyed our society.

I am under the impression that if anything is ruining our society, it is knee jerk responses and shallow uninformed opinions.

Political Correctness is merely being polite and considerate; it may cause you to self censor, but shouldn't you be willing to do that for the people in your duty section?

We might have freedom speech in this great nation, but we have never had freedom of consequence.

Being politically correct creates harmony in a duty section, it doesn't rob anyone of freedom.

Being polite and respectful to people of a different ethnicity, gender, sexuality shouldn't be seen as a burden. These are the people you not only work with, but when we deploy, they are the people you fight and die beside.

Every culture is proud of their heritage, traditions, music, and food. When a group wants to celebrate their culture with a special event, you should respect their right to do so; after all, they are your brothers and sisters at arms.

Yes, that also includes your gay & lesbian brothers and sisters. Their group is the newest to be welcomed openly in to our military culture, but they have always been there.

Being polite and respectful, isn't a burden, it is just the right thing to do.

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 05:07 PM
There you go! I also notice that all these people, you know, who "are not afraid to tell the truth" only have such courage from a recording studio in the case of radio talk show host, or on the internet... MTF, for example.

In real life? I bet they're just as courteous as the next guy.

Hell, if I was in the Air Force... someone like Rainmaker could be that very co-worker that's totally cordial to me at work, and I wouldn't suspect a thing. And that's usually how it is. Those things that are said on the internet, I never see being said in real life. The only people who can be saying those things on the internet, are the people who smile in your face in real life.

And that's a bad thing. Because you never know who's who.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 05:33 PM
I am under the impression that if anything is ruining our society, it is knee jerk responses and shallow uninformed opinions. +1


Political Correctness is merely being polite and considerate; it may cause you to self censor, but shouldn't you be willing to do that for the people in your duty section?I've never heard it put that way before.

BENDER56
06-14-2014, 06:45 PM
And that's a bad thing. Because you never know who's who.

I don't believe it is possible for one human being to truly know any other human being, ever. I don't think that is a bad thing, it merely is what it is. In fact, most of us don't really understand what we truly "know" and what we don't.

Yet lots of people blithely go around spewing that they "know" all kinds of stuff they cannot possibly know.

They "know" OJ did it. They "know" Obama's a Muslim. They "know" who's lying in a "he said/she said" dilemma. We don't know a fraction of the things we think we do so let's all get over our self-deceptive selves, can we?

(This isn't directed at you, Rusty. Your comment just got me thinking about this.)

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 08:58 PM
There you go! I also notice that all these people, you know, who "are not afraid to tell the truth" only have such courage from a recording studio in the case of radio talk show host, or on the internet... MTF, for example.

In real life? I bet they're just as courteous as the next guy.


I've noticed that too.

I've also noticed that those who loudly bemoan political correctness are not able to give a coherent defense of why being PC is bad.

It might stem from not having a universal definition of the term, but in large part, I think the anti-PC crowd are those who are locked in the past and afraid of change.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 09:22 PM
I've noticed that too.

I've also noticed that those who loudly bemoan political correctness are not able to give a coherent defense of why being PC is bad.

It might stem from not having a universal definition of the term, but in large part, I think the anti-PC crowd are those who are locked in the past and afraid of change.

I've been thinking quite a bit about what annoys me about "PC". I don't even think it's the political correctness itself. I think it's a frustration that people take stuff so personally and are so easily offended or hurt by words.

Let's be honest. People are always going to say and do stupid shit. The best defense we have towards it is to not let it bother us.

We always compare ourselves with other countries when it comes to so many things. I've never been to any other country where the people get so offended about jokes, nudity, and words in general. I'm not saying we should be like other countries, but I just wonder what the difference is.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 10:01 PM
I've been thinking quite a bit about what annoys me about "PC". I don't even think it's the political correctness itself. I think it's a frustration that people take stuff so personally and are so easily offended or hurt by words.

Let's be honest. People are always going to say and do stupid shit. The best defense we have towards it is to not let it bother us..

There is an element of truth to that, but would not that extend to the anti-PC crowd as well?

Who is being easily offended in this scenario?

An American-Samoan who sends out an email about Asian Pacific Islander Month.

A recipient who receives the email and posts a thread on MT forums calling it evidence of PC run amok?



We always compare ourselves with other countries when it comes to so many things. I've never been to any other country where the people get so offended about jokes, nudity, and words in general. I'm not saying we should be like other countries, but I just wonder what the difference is.

Could it be an area where our country is more advanced than the rest of the world?

I think we are trying hard to overcome racial, ethnic, gender and sexual divides in this country. We've got away to go, but the fact that we are sensitive to offending others doesn't have to be viewed as a weakness.

I view it as a strength, at least we are trying to address it, and not ignoring it like other countries.

I spent a considerable part of my career in Japan and Korea. I love both countries, but both can be very racist and both are far behind the US in gender equality.

Political Correctness is good for our country, not bad.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 10:24 PM
There is an element of truth to that, but would not that extend to the anti-PC crowd as well?

Who is being easily offended in this scenario?

An American-Samoan who sends out an email about Asian Pacific Islander Month.

A recipient who receives the email and posts a thread on MT forums calling it evidence of PC run amok?



Could it be an area where our country is more advanced than the rest of the world?

I think we are trying hard to overcome racial, ethnic, gender and sexual divides in this country. We've got away to go, but the fact that we are sensitive to offending others doesn't have to be viewed as a weakness.

I view it as a strength, at least we are trying to address it, and not ignoring it like other countries.

I spent a considerable part of my career in Japan and Korea. I love both countries, but both can be very racist and both are far behind the US in gender equality.

Political Correctness is good for our country, not bad.

Will have to put some thought into this one

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 10:39 PM
Will have to put some thought into this one

Thanks for taking it into consideration.

I think we can agree that we have been in agreement on several topics today.

Wouldn't you agree?

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 11:41 PM
Thanks for taking it into consideration.

I think we can agree that we have been in agreement on several topics today.

Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree on that agreement of our agreements.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 11:45 PM
There is an element of truth to that, but would not that extend to the anti-PC crowd as well?

Who is being easily offended in this scenario?

An American-Samoan who sends out an email about Asian Pacific Islander Month.

A recipient who receives the email and posts a thread on MT forums calling it evidence of PC run amok?



Could it be an area where our country is more advanced than the rest of the world?

I think we are trying hard to overcome racial, ethnic, gender and sexual divides in this country. We've got away to go, but the fact that we are sensitive to offending others doesn't have to be viewed as a weakness.

I view it as a strength, at least we are trying to address it, and not ignoring it like other countries.

I spent a considerable part of my career in Japan and Korea. I love both countries, but both can be very racist and both are far behind the US in gender equality.

Political Correctness is good for our country, not bad.

Ok, I've put some thought into it. I still am not entirely sure.

It seems to me that those countries (European) are far more liberal than even our liberals. They are more into taking care of their people with the health care systems, their welfare systems, etc.

I'm not concerned about the silly email thing about events.

I wonder if it just simply has to do with the makeup of our country...the diversity that we have that makes us need to be more aware. Other countries (other than maybe England) have very little diversity.

As far as it goes with women, American women are just way to uptight (that's not PC, I know). European women don't have issues with nudity, being complimented, etc.

BENDER56
06-15-2014, 12:19 AM
If they are civil about it, adults who are familiar with one another should be able to discuss any topic whatsoever. During such discussions they should be able to use any words or terms. If a person is uncomfortable discussing any particular topic, they should say so and others, out of basic etiquette, should avoid said topic. (Unless youse is from Joisey or Philly or any other place where ragging on each other is the preferred form of bonding.)

Basic etiquette also dictates that when in a group of people with whom you are unfamiliar, certain topics, i.e., politics, sex, religion, etc., should be avoided. This isn't anything new. I think the purpose of this was to keep gatherings pleasant for everyone.

But it seems the pendulum has moved from a previously accepted center to some other extreme position. Topics can become forbidden if only a miniscule fraction of people don't want to hear about them. At some colleges today, professors have to begin a lecture by warning the class that certain words or topics will be discussed, so to give any students a chance to leave. They're called trigger warnings. This is college for Pete's sake -- where students should be able to discuss anything and everything openly and objectively.

Part of the PC realm is the Politics of Being Offended. If I can claim that you have given me offense, then it follows that I can claim retribution -- or at least put you on the defensive. It's a cheap form of one-upmanship against someone stronger, but it skirts whatever real issues are at hand. I think this is a significant driver behind the increase of PC, and I don't think it's healthy for society. So I think this aspect of PC is not good.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 12:20 AM
Ok, I've put some thought into it. I still am not entirely sure.

It seems to me that those countries (European) are far more liberal than even our liberals. They are more into taking care of their people with the health care systems, their welfare systems, etc.

I'm not concerned about the silly email thing about events.

I wonder if it just simply has to do with the makeup of our country...the diversity that we have that makes us need to be more aware. Other countries (other than maybe England) have very little diversity.

As far as it goes with women, American women are just way to uptight (that's not PC, I know). European women don't have issues with nudity, being complimented, etc.

Thanks for thinking about it.

I believe focusing on European socialized medicine and welfare programs is leading you not to see that Western Europe also struggles with racial, ethnic, religious tensions to a high degree.

A couple of years ago France had an incredible number of violent riots in it's Arabic communities, many of their cities burned. Germany has issues with their Turkish minorities, and blacks on the entire continent are not openly accepted.

I haven't even brought up how the Roma are treated on the entire continent.

I have no problem saying that Eastern Europe is light years behind the US in terms of acceptance and equality.

Gender equality is not automatic and I have worked directly with the Polish for an extended period and seen first hand sexual harassment of an unsettling nature.

Add to that, how nationalistic the Europeans are, and the image of them being laissez-faire and socially enlightened begins to tarnish.

There is no shortage of bigotry and racism in Europe.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 12:38 AM
But it seems the pendulum has moved from a previously accepted center to some other extreme position. Topics can become forbidden if only a miniscule fraction of people don't want to hear about them. At some colleges today, professors have to begin a lecture by warning the class that certain words or topics will be discussed, so to give any students a chance to leave. They're called trigger warnings. This is college for Pete's sake -- where students should be able to discuss anything and everything openly and objectively.

Part of the PC realm is the Politics of Being Offended. If I can claim that you have given me offense, then it follows that I can claim retribution -- or at least put you on the defensive. It's a cheap form of one-upmanship against someone stronger, but it skirts whatever real issues are at hand. I think this is a significant driver behind the increase of PC, and I don't think it's healthy for society. So I think this aspect of PC is not good.

I'll acknowledge the point you are making here, but I'd argue that is merely people being manipulative.

Again, the way I defined political correctness in the OP was merely being polite and respectful.

I am currently attending a large university full time and I haven't felt that there is an obsessive amount of concern with things like "trigger words."

My professors do demand a polite and respectful discussion, but they aren't restrictive in exchanging ideas.

garhkal
06-15-2014, 04:41 AM
Being polite and respectful to people of a different ethnicity, gender, sexuality shouldn't be seen as a burden. These are the people you not only work with, but when we deploy, they are the people you fight and die beside.

Every culture is proud of their heritage, traditions, music, and food. When a group wants to celebrate their culture with a special event, you should respect their right to do so; after all, they are your brothers and sisters at arms.

IMO a lot of it may stem from the fact that since all this PC'ness came into being, we are getting thrusted in the face with every differing interested groups what with al the history months, observances etc and being told to be tolerant, but when its the 'other side' wanting to express their opinions (even if wrong) they are called intolerant for it. Some also hate being "TOLD to be respectful" to this or that group, especially if/when they don't see much respect coming back (imo its something earned, not something that should be shown just because).


I've been thinking quite a bit about what annoys me about "PC". I don't even think it's the political correctness itself. I think it's a frustration that people take stuff so personally and are so easily offended or hurt by words.

That is another reason so many i know are hateful of the PCness of society these days. It seems we have shifted from you can say what you want, just be willing to live with the consequences, to Don't say anything that MAY offend someone, even if that is NOT the person you were speaking to.



But it seems the pendulum has moved from a previously accepted center to some other extreme position. Topics can become forbidden if only a miniscule fraction of people don't want to hear about them. At some colleges today, professors have to begin a lecture by warning the class that certain words or topics will be discussed, so to give any students a chance to leave. They're called trigger warnings. This is college for Pete's sake -- where students should be able to discuss anything and everything openly and objectively.

Part of the PC realm is the Politics of Being Offended. If I can claim that you have given me offense, then it follows that I can claim retribution -- or at least put you on the defensive. It's a cheap form of one-upmanship against someone stronger, but it skirts whatever real issues are at hand. I think this is a significant driver behind the increase of PC, and I don't think it's healthy for society. So I think this aspect of PC is not good.

Very true. If a college course, say on politics/socialism etc is NOT the place to discuss something that "MAY" offend (not has or will, just May), then exactly where the heck IS?



I haven't even brought up how the Roma are treated on the entire continent.

A good chunk of the issue with the Roma is imo because of experience with them. Many towns when a 'group of Roma' move in, see an abrubt increase in crime (pick pockets, break ins etc) and often they tresspass, setting up their mobile homes/tents etc on someone's land with no permission and a lot of time, failing to move when asked (and sometimes even having to get FORCED off), then leave damage/trash all over the place. So if that happened before, do you honestly expect a town to be willing to 'accept roma' again?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 05:18 AM
IMO a lot of it may stem from the fact that since all this PC'ness came into being, we are getting thrusted in the face with every differing interested groups what with al the history months, observances etc and being told to be tolerant, but when its the 'other side' wanting to express their opinions (even if wrong) they are called intolerant for it. Some also hate being "TOLD to be respectful" to this or that group, especially if/when they don't see much respect coming back (imo its something earned, not something that should be shown just because).



That is another reason so many i know are hateful of the PCness of society these days. It seems we have shifted from you can say what you want, just be willing to live with the consequences, to Don't say anything that MAY offend someone, even if that is NOT the person you were speaking to.




I said this earlier in the thread, and it is certainly applicable to what you just posted.

"I've also noticed that those who loudly bemoan political correctness are not able to give a coherent defense of why being PC is bad."

I'm having a hard time following what you are talking about. You seem to be claiming that you are being disrespected in some manner, if so, you should know first hand, that being polite and respectful (PC) is the right thing to do.

Chief_KO
06-15-2014, 01:50 PM
The term "Politically Correct" is an oxymoron, like "Military Intelligence" or "Happily Married". Just kidding.
But, I do think the "correctness" has been replaced with "counterfeit" (made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged: pretended: unreal).
We are forced to dance around subjects and create vanilla (sorry to offend fellow WASPs) terms such as a "Holiday Tree" or a "Holiday Party" instead of saying the term Christmas.
One prime example is the use of the term "alleged" as opposed to "accused". A crime is committed, a person (Y) was brutally murdered (stabbed). A suspect is arrested, media reports that "X is alleged to have stabbed Y to death". No, the correct phrase would be "X is accused to have stabbed Y to death." It is a fact that Y was stabbed to death (this is not alleged), and X is the person who is accused of committing this crime.
One truth: There is only one person on the face of the earth that agrees 100% with every one of your thoughts and opinions. That person is YOU.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 02:24 PM
The term "Politically Correct" is an oxymoron, like "Military Intelligence" or "Happily Married". Just kidding.

But, I do think the "correctness" has been replaced with "counterfeit" (made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged: pretended: unreal).
We are forced to dance around subjects and create vanilla (sorry to offend fellow WASPs) terms such as a "Holiday Tree" or a "Holiday Party" instead of saying the term Christmas.

One prime example is the use of the term "alleged" as opposed to "accused". A crime is committed, a person (Y) was brutally murdered (stabbed). A suspect is arrested, media reports that "X is alleged to have stabbed Y to death". No, the correct phrase would be "X is accused to have stabbed Y to death." It is a fact that Y was stabbed to death (this is not alleged), and X is the person who is accused of committing this crime.

One truth: There is only one person on the face of the earth that agrees 100% with every one of your thoughts and opinions. That person is YOU.

I don't follow what you are trying to illustrate with the person X stabbing person Y bit, so I'll talk about Christmas parties.

I went to an Air Force unit Christmas party as late as 2007 and a company Christmas party in 2012, so I think the reputed demise of Christmas parties is greatly exaggerated.

None-the-less, if we use the working definition of PC as being polite and respectful, what would be so terrible about having a Holiday party instead of a Christmas party?

Especially, if this party is being held for a group of people that have different religious beliefs?

It makes even more sense to use a neutral term like Holiday party, when I consider your "One Truth."

It simply sounds like the organizers of Holiday parties are merely being polite and respectful.

Why is that so bad?

LogDog
06-15-2014, 08:05 PM
I have grown more than tired of hearing how Political Correctness has destroyed our society.

I am under the impression that if anything is ruining our society, it is knee jerk responses and shallow uninformed opinions.

Political Correctness is merely being polite and considerate; it may cause you to self censor, but shouldn't you be willing to do that for the people in your duty section?

We might have freedom speech in this great nation, but we have never had freedom of consequence.

Being politically correct creates harmony in a duty section, it doesn't rob anyone of freedom.

Being polite and respectful to people of a different ethnicity, gender, sexuality shouldn't be seen as a burden. These are the people you not only work with, but when we deploy, they are the people you fight and die beside.

Every culture is proud of their heritage, traditions, music, and food. When a group wants to celebrate their culture with a special event, you should respect their right to do so; after all, they are your brothers and sisters at arms.

Yes, that also includes your gay & lesbian brothers and sisters. Their group is the newest to be welcomed openly in to our military culture, but they have always been there.

Being polite and respectful, isn't a burden, it is just the right thing to do.
I've never believed "Political Correctness" to be real but I view it as an excuse weak minded people not being able to take responsibility for what they say or do but blame their failure(s) on others. The earliest mention I can recall of political correctness was 25 or more years ago when a female student didn't get the grade she expected on a paper she wrote. She blamed her professor for her not being "politically correct" because her political beliefs differed from her professor's and she felt he was taking it out on her. My thoughts then and now are if her paper and research supported her thesis then chances are she would have gotten a descent grade regardless of the professor's political beliefs.

I've known people who didn't get their way use "political correctness" as a excuse and I asked them to explain it. All they could do was moan and bellyache about others not accepting their ideas. When I pressed them on their ideas, even they couldn't give a good explain of why their ideas were better. Like I said, it's an excuse used by weak minded people for not taking responsibility.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 08:44 PM
I've never believed "Political Correctness" to be real but I view it as an excuse weak minded people not being able to take responsibility for what they say or do but blame their failure(s) on others. The earliest mention I can recall of political correctness was 25 or more years ago when a female student didn't get the grade she expected on a paper she wrote. She blamed her professor for her not being "politically correct" because her political beliefs differed from her professor's and she felt he was taking it out on her. My thoughts then and now are if her paper and research supported her thesis then chances are she would have gotten a descent grade regardless of the professor's political beliefs.

I've known people who didn't get their way use "political correctness" as a excuse and I asked them to explain it. All they could do was moan and bellyache about others not accepting their ideas. When I pressed them on their ideas, even they couldn't give a good explain of why their ideas were better. Like I said, it's an excuse used by weak minded people for not taking responsibility.

Good example.

I see the people who complain about PC being oppressive, as exaggerators and hand wringers.

Someone mentioned earlier about being forced into calling Christmas parties, Holiday parties.

That's total bullshit. No body is forcing anyone to call them Holiday parties. What is happening is that people are deciding to call them Holiday parties.

If you want a Christmas party, get on the organizing committee and call it a Christmas party. If someone tries to persuade you to call it a Holiday party, then it is up to persuade them otherwise.

If you aren't articulate enough to persuade the others on the committee to go with Christmas, then that is your own personal failure.

It isn't some invisible boogieman called political correctness.

No, political correctness is merely being polite and respectful.

Chief_KO
06-16-2014, 02:56 AM
People in fact ARE forcing Christmas Parties to be called Holiday Parties so not to offend anyone. If someone wants to have a Hanukkah Party, Kwanzaa Party, Ramadan Party, or Festivus Party I say go for it; I would not be offended. So, I say to extend the same level of respect to those that want to celebrate Christmas (be if for the jolly fat man in red or the birth of Jesus).

My X Y scenario was about the press using the term alleged as opposed to accused. The crime is not alleged (it happened), so the suspect is not "alleged" to have committed a crime, he/she is "accused" of committing a crime.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 03:33 AM
People in fact ARE forcing Christmas Parties to be called Holiday Parties so not to offend anyone. If someone wants to have a Hanukkah Party, Kwanzaa Party, Ramadan Party, or Festivus Party I say go for it; I would not be offended. So, I say to extend the same level of respect to those that want to celebrate Christmas (be if for the jolly fat man in red or the birth of Jesus).



Preposterous! People are organizing parties and choosing to call them holiday parties. There is no law against having Christmas parties.

If a person wants a Christmas party then they have to get involved with the event; if they encounter opposition, then they have persuade the others involved with the event to call it a Christmas party.

retiredAFcivvy
06-16-2014, 05:36 AM
Preposterous! People are organizing parties and choosing to call them holiday parties. There is no law against having Christmas parties.

If a person wants a Christmas party then they have to get involved with the event; if they encounter opposition, then they have persuade the others involved with the event to call it a Christmas party.
What happens when your idea of persuading others is viewed as pushing your religious beliefs onto others?
I believe Chief is correct and it does happen.

Sergeant eNYgma
06-16-2014, 12:05 PM
What happens when your idea of persuading others is viewed as pushing your religious beliefs onto others?
I believe Chief is correct and it does happen.

Chief IS Correct we were told at my base that they're to be referred to as Holiday Parties....some people (Like me) still call them X mas parties but the official term is "Holiday" now.

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 12:23 PM
Chief IS Correct we were told at my base that they're to be referred to as Holiday Parties....some people (Like me) still call them X mas parties but the official term is "Holiday" now.

How 'bout this. How 'bout those who want a Christmas Party organize a Christmas party. I always hear people say that they have no problems with organizing parties for their religious holiday. Do the same for a Christmas Party.

The reason they have changed it is because it is the "official" party organized by the Squadron, booster club, etc. Prizes are purchased with money contributed by everyone. Food is bought with money contributed by everyone. I'm sure there is no problem with a separate party being organized by those Christians who feel the need to have a "traditional" party.

Just avoid advertising it over official government Email. Those things are annoying to those who don't believe the way you do.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 12:49 PM
What happens when your idea of persuading others is viewed as pushing your religious beliefs onto others?

That is when one doubles down on their persuasion techniques and explains that it is a secular party, but that it is a good idea to keep the party named a Christmas party as an acknowledgement and celebration of an American cultural event.

One might have to skillfully appeal to the emotions of the Holiday party proponents by politely explaining that shelving the Christmas name is culturally insensitive to many members of the organization.

What one doesn't do, is get whiny and pouty about it, and start talking about "PC nonsense" in an inflammatory manner.

Offer to write a skit that acknowledges and pays tribute to all of the cultural-religious traditions that are observed during the holiday season.

Point out that the Federal holiday that we get the day off for is actually called Christmas.

Admittedly, one will have to be a gifted and talented speaker, but so goes life. If a person feels so strongly about such matters as keeping parties named Christmas parties, then they need to learn how to defend them in an articulate and intelligent manner.




I believe Chief is correct and it does happen.

Parties are sometimes named Holiday parties.

Are people forced into naming them that?

I would argue that the word "forced" doesn't accurately describe what happens.

During my time in the Air Force, I helped organize many parties, and only once, did I encounter a debate about what to call a party, and that was a Halloween party.

One of the officer's wives wanted to call it an autumn party. There was a tense moment or two, and some eye rolling in the room, but there was a young SSgt in the room who actually out-talked the snooty officer's wife.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 12:58 PM
How 'bout this. How 'bout those who want a Christmas Party organize a Christmas party. I always hear people say that they have no problems with organizing parties for their religious holiday. Do the same for a Christmas Party.

The reason they have changed it is because it is the "official" party organized by the Squadron, booster club, etc. Prizes are purchased with money contributed by everyone. Food is bought with money contributed by everyone. I'm sure there is no problem with a separate party being organized by those Christians who feel the need to have a "traditional" party.

Just avoid advertising it over official government Email. Those things are annoying to those who don't believe the way you do.

Yet another great idea from SJ!

People only need to "use their words" or be creative, and they can have all the Christmas parties they want.

I still firmly believe that Political Correctness is good, after all, it is just being polite and respectful.

What is wrong with that?

Chief_KO
06-16-2014, 01:15 PM
True there is no "Law" against a "Christmas" Party or "Christmas" Tree, but you have to agree there are many in positions of authority (military & civilian) that use (and mandate) the generic "Holiday" so not to offend.
Question: How many Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, etc. are so truly "offended" or feel slighted by the US celebration of Christmas as an official government holiday that they refuse to take the day off (if is in their employment benefits) and instead choose another day of their choosing? That would seem like a fair deal to me.
Yes, the Christmas Party is the official squadron party held during the month of December, much like a picnic (serving meat) is the official squadron party held during the summer. Is that offensive (or insensitive) to vegans? Yes. But just like the majority of folks celebrate the holiday known as Christmas (for either Santa Claus, Jesus or both), the majority of folks like to celebrate summer with grilled meats. But, there is nothing wrong with throwing some veggie kabobs on the grill as well. Other than an invocation or blessing over the food, I do not remember any religious aspect to any Christmas Party. The party is for food, fun & fellowship with your co-workers & their families (sometimes only the spouses/guest).
For those that disagree, I respect this agreement to disagree.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 01:35 PM
True there is no "Law" against a "Christmas" Party or "Christmas" Tree, but you have to agree there are many in positions of authority (military & civilian) that use (and mandate) the generic "Holiday" so not to offend.
Question: How many Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, etc. are so truly "offended" or feel slighted by the US celebration of Christmas as an official government holiday that they refuse to take the day off (if is in their employment benefits) and instead choose another day of their choosing? That would seem like a fair deal to me.
Yes, the Christmas Party is the official squadron party held during the month of December, much like a picnic (serving meat) is the official squadron party held during the summer. Is that offensive (or insensitive) to vegans? Yes. But just like the majority of folks celebrate the holiday known as Christmas (for either Santa Claus, Jesus or both), the majority of folks like to celebrate summer with grilled meats. But, there is nothing wrong with throwing some veggie kabobs on the grill as well. Other than an invocation or blessing over the food, I do not remember any religious aspect to any Christmas Party. The party is for food, fun & fellowship with your co-workers & their families (sometimes only the spouses/guest).
For those that disagree, I respect this agreement to disagree.

I don't think we are that far apart on how we see phenomena of how parties get named.

I'll acknowledge that there are those in positions of authority that mandate the naming of parties.

I would like to point out that even though they are in a position of authority, they aren't "ten feet tall" and that their authority is far from absolute.

If one approaches the matter in an intelligent and calculated manner, they can sway the opinion of almost anyone. Will they sometimes be unsuccessful? Most definitely, but such is life.

However, this thread isn't about Christmas, it is about Political Correctness being a force for good.

If you are polite and respectful, you'll find that you can often accomplish great things.

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 01:39 PM
True there is no "Law" against a "Christmas" Party or "Christmas" Tree, but you have to agree there are many in positions of authority (military & civilian) that use (and mandate) the generic "Holiday" so not to offend.
Question: How many Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, etc. are so truly "offended" or feel slighted by the US celebration of Christmas as an official government holiday that they refuse to take the day off (if is in their employment benefits) and instead choose another day of their choosing? That would seem like a fair deal to me.
Yes, the Christmas Party is the official squadron party held during the month of December, much like a picnic (serving meat) is the official squadron party held during the summer. Is that offensive (or insensitive) to vegans? Yes. But just like the majority of folks celebrate the holiday known as Christmas (for either Santa Claus, Jesus or both), the majority of folks like to celebrate summer with grilled meats. But, there is nothing wrong with throwing some veggie kabobs on the grill as well. Other than an invocation or blessing over the food, I do not remember any religious aspect to any Christmas Party. The party is for food, fun & fellowship with your co-workers & their families (sometimes only the spouses/guest).
For those that disagree, I respect this agreement to disagree.So if there is no religious aspect to it then why must it be called a Christmas Party? Seems kind of blasphemic to have a party celebrating the birth of Christ then do nothing to commemmorate that.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-16-2014, 01:48 PM
I don't have a problem with calling a Xmas party a Holiday Party, but what irks me is the name change of the base Xmas tree to "Holiday Tree." Three of my last four bases referred to the tree as a Holiday Tree, and I was even corrected by a commander for calling it a Xmas tree. I say BS on the name change. Despite the PC-driven name change, there is no such thing as a Holiday Tree. Even Target tried to change the names of Xmas trees to Holiday Trees, but thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly, that stupid move was reversed when Target started getting bad press. Is PC real? Sure is!

socal1200r
06-16-2014, 01:49 PM
Repealing DADT = PC
Dream Act = PC
Same-sex marriage = PC
More gun control laws = PC
"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" = PC
Obama Care = PC
LGBT mafia running amok = PC

The list goes on and on and on and on...

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 02:00 PM
Repealing DADT = PC
Dream Act = PC
Same-sex marriage = PC
More gun control laws = PC
"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" = PC
Obama Care = PC
LGBT mafia running amok = PC

The list goes on and on and on and on...

I said this earlier in the thread, and it is certainly applicable to what you just posted.

"I've also noticed that those who loudly bemoan political correctness are not able to give a coherent defense of why being PC is bad."

Political Correctness is merely being polite and respectful.

What is wrong with that?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 02:26 PM
I don't have a problem with calling a Xmas party a Holiday Party, but what irks me is the name change of the base Xmas tree to "Holiday Tree." Three of my last four bases referred to the tree as a Holiday Tree, and I was even corrected by a commander for calling it a Xmas tree. I say BS on the name change. Despite the PC-driven name change, there is no such thing as a Holiday Tree. Even Target tried to change the names of Xmas trees to Holiday Trees, but thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly, that stupid move was reversed when Target started getting bad press. Is PC real? Sure is!

Actually the custom of bringing evergreen trees indoors during the winter solstice, has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a pagan ritual that predates Christianity, and it stayed popular after the pagans of Europe converted.

However, this thread isn't about Christmas trees, it is about how political correctness is merely about being polite and respectful.

Bill O'Reilly is a talented speaker, and he has certainly mastered the use of the English language.

While he is often criticized for being harsh with his words, he proves my earlier point about what one can accomplish with the power of persuasion. His talking point segment that opens his show is often eloquent, and thought provoking.

I say good for Mr. O'Reilly for convincing Target to change their minds.

I still think that political correctness is a good thing, it is merely being polite and respectful.

We live in a world of ideas, and we are bound to encounter ideas that we don't agree with.

I think that people are wrongly associating political correctness with a leftist social agenda, when in reality, political correctness can be used to forward any idea or agenda, even right-wing social agendas.

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 04:12 PM
I don't have a problem with calling a Xmas party a Holiday Party, but what irks me is the name change of the base Xmas tree to "Holiday Tree." Three of my last four bases referred to the tree as a Holiday Tree, and I was even corrected by a commander for calling it a Xmas tree. I say BS on the name change. Despite the PC-driven name change, there is no such thing as a Holiday Tree. Even Target tried to change the names of Xmas trees to Holiday Trees, but thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly, that stupid move was reversed when Target started getting bad press. Is PC real? Sure is!I do agree with this. If you have a tree decorated that time of year, it's a Christmas tree. If the base wants some other symbol then go for it. That would be like calling a menorah a "Holiday candleabra".

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 05:41 PM
I do agree with this. If you have a tree decorated that time of year, it's a Christmas tree. If the base wants some other symbol then go for it. That would be like calling a menorah a "Holiday candleabra".

I'll agree with you yet again; while I could debate you about the origin of Christmas trees, in today's age they are obviously Christmas trees.

One has plenty of evidence available to build a convincing and compelling argument to keep it called the Base Christmas tree should they choose to do so.

The concept of political correctness can even aide them in doing such a thing.

Getting pouty and whining about it to a group of like minded people does nothing to further one's argument of preserving the "Christmas tree."

One must confront such things in an articulate and intelligent manner; part of that is taking your case to the right people, and part of it is being polite and respectful.

Political correctness can work for anyone, after all, it is just being polite and respectful.

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 06:07 PM
I'll agree with you yet again; while I could debate you about the origin of Christmas trees, in today's age they are obviously Christmas trees. I'm not disputing the origin of the Christmas tree, nor mistletoe, nor any other symbol that has been adopted as part of the Christmas celebration. Though I did hear that Mary's first kiss only took place because she was standing under the mistletoe and so was obligated.

Measure Man
06-16-2014, 06:17 PM
The term "Politically Correct" is an oxymoron, like "Military Intelligence" or "Happily Married". Just kidding.
But, I do think the "correctness" has been replaced with "counterfeit" (made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged: pretended: unreal).
We are forced to dance around subjects and create vanilla (sorry to offend fellow WASPs) terms such as a "Holiday Tree" or a "Holiday Party" instead of saying the term Christmas.
One prime example is the use of the term "alleged" as opposed to "accused". A crime is committed, a person (Y) was brutally murdered (stabbed). A suspect is arrested, media reports that "X is alleged to have stabbed Y to death". No, the correct phrase would be "X is accused to have stabbed Y to death." It is a fact that Y was stabbed to death (this is not alleged), and X is the person who is accused of committing this crime.
One truth: There is only one person on the face of the earth that agrees 100% with every one of your thoughts and opinions. That person is YOU.

I don't get the significance of "alleged" vs. "accused"...doesn't make any PC difference I don't think, just for one reason or another a term has become used.


None-the-less, if we use the working definition of PC as being polite and respectful, what would be so terrible about having a Holiday party instead of a Christmas party?

It offends the Christians...for whatever reason, they feel they own the month of December.


People in fact ARE forcing Christmas Parties to be called Holiday Parties so not to offend anyone. If someone wants to have a Hanukkah Party, Kwanzaa Party, Ramadan Party, or Festivus Party I say go for it; I would not be offended.

Then why are you so seemingly offended at a party intended to celebrate all being called a "Holiday Party"?


So, I say to extend the same level of respect to those that want to celebrate Christmas (be if for the jolly fat man in red or the birth of Jesus).

Nobody is stopping you....but you seem to be saying that this must be the official squadron party.


My X Y scenario was about the press using the term alleged as opposed to accused. The crime is not alleged (it happened), so the suspect is not "alleged" to have committed a crime, he/she is "accused" of committing a crime.

Yeah, I still don't get it. The person is alleged to have committed the crime.

It may not have been a crime at all...if it proves to be self-defense. And if it is a crime, it may not be the person they arrested. I just don't think the alleged vs. accused vs. suspected...is a product of any type of PC environment...it's just simple word choice.

I think you are searchign for PCness and finding it where none exists.

garhkal
06-16-2014, 08:02 PM
I'm having a hard time following what you are talking about. You seem to be claiming that you are being disrespected in some manner, if so, you should know first hand, that being polite and respectful (PC) is the right thing to do.

Maybe i was not as clear as i should have been. Respect is a 2 way street. I show it to you, you show it to me. BUT often in the PC crowd, i have found those wanting/demanding YOU show them/their group/beliefs (etc) respect, don't give any respect back. Such as the case when someone asked why we don't have an Irish american heritage, (or other group that would tie into being caucasian) month, and often the EO guy shuts it down right quick. So to me that is NOT showing respect to us, so why should we show respect to them? If all should be respectful, then why is it seeming to only apply one way? Is that clearer?

Though then again, seeing how uneven laws are applied (such as sexual discrimination, case and point gyms only for women, but if a male only gym gets opened, it gets sued for being discriminatory), i can see why it does not get evenly applied in that case too.

Rusty Jones
06-16-2014, 08:11 PM
Maybe i was not as clear as i should have been. Respect is a 2 way street. I show it to you, you show it to me. BUT often in the PC crowd, i have found those wanting/demanding YOU show them/their group/beliefs (etc) respect, don't give any respect back. Such as the case when someone asked why we don't have an Irish american heritage, (or other group that would tie into being caucasian) month, and often the EO guy shuts it down right quick. So to me that is NOT showing respect to us, so why should we show respect to them? If all should be respectful, then why is it seeming to only apply one way? Is that clearer?

Though then again, seeing how uneven laws are applied (such as sexual discrimination, case and point gyms only for women, but if a male only gym gets opened, it gets sued for being discriminatory), i can see why it does not get evenly applied in that case too.

I can see why he shut it down. I'd shut down all "they have this, why can't we have it too" questions myself.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 08:17 PM
Maybe i was not as clear as i should have been. Respect is a 2 way street. I show it to you, you show it to me. BUT often in the PC crowd, i have found those wanting/demanding YOU show them/their group/beliefs (etc) respect, don't give any respect back. Such as the case when someone asked why we don't have an Irish american heritage, (or other group that would tie into being caucasian) month, and often the EO guy shuts it down right quick. So to me that is NOT showing respect to us, so why should we show respect to them? If all should be respectful, then why is it seeming to only apply one way? Is that clearer?

Though then again, seeing how uneven laws are applied (such as sexual discrimination, case and point gyms only for women, but if a male only gym gets opened, it gets sued for being discriminatory), i can see why it does not get evenly applied in that case too.

Thanks for reminding us about your Scandinavian Area and Germanic Area celebrations that you "tried" getting approved.

That was a real hoot!

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 09:11 PM
Thanks for reminding us about your Scandinavian Area and Germanic Area celebrations that you "tried" getting approved.

That was a real hoot!

Real hoot? Are you making fun of Canadians?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 12:01 AM
Real hoot? Are you making fun of Canadians?

No, there is no real sport in that.

garhkal
06-17-2014, 01:41 AM
Thanks for reminding us about your Scandinavian Area and Germanic Area celebrations that you "tried" getting approved.

That was a real hoot!

What aspect was a hoot? That i would have liked to have seen a celebration of scandinavian/germanic history, or that i only 'tried' getting it approved?

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 01:37 PM
I have grown more than tired of hearing how Political Correctness has destroyed our society.

I am under the impression that if anything is ruining our society, it is knee jerk responses and shallow uninformed opinions.

Political Correctness is merely being polite and considerate; it may cause you to self censor, but shouldn't you be willing to do that for the people in your duty section?

We might have freedom speech in this great nation, but we have never had freedom of consequence.Yet PC stiffles those who are uninformed from having to suffer the consequences from their statements. If I cant say something because it isnt PC, then what good does it do for me not to get it out and have you debate the issue and inform me with the correct information? Saying "Blacks have a higher single parent ratio than any other race or ethnicity" isnt exactly PC. Even if its true, it cant be said, by whites or blacks, because its a negative fact against a race of people who had been oppressed. But saying "whites have more people on food-stamps" is alright because whites haven't been oppressed. Saying "Irish were treated worse as slaves and had their population cut in half because of slavery" isnt PC either because that takes away from the notion only blacks where slaves. PC is used to redirect the arguement and keep anyone from discussing uncomfortable realities that take power away from the race baiting, sex baiting victimizers who profit greatly off atrocities of the past.


Being politically correct creates harmony in a duty section, it doesn't rob anyone of freedom.No, keeping people uninformed because its not PC to state an opinion or fact based off the notion it might offend someone is not harmony, its keeping people ignorant. That has always been the way the big government types like. Slave owners kept their slaves ignorant as much as possible. Democrats in the south kept minorities ignorant through poor schools. Establishment GOP keep people ignorant to the fact that we have caused most of the worlds strife by messing in other countries affairs for over a century now.


Being polite and respectful to people of a different ethnicity, gender, sexuality shouldn't be seen as a burden. These are the people you not only work with, but when we deploy, they are the people you fight and die beside.Not discussing stuff doesnt mean respect, its cowardace. I have liberal friends at my work, and we discuss everything. But we are respectful towards him in the manor that we dont call each other names. Its pretty easy when both people know the facts of the arguements.


Every culture is proud of their heritage, traditions, music, and food. When a group wants to celebrate their culture with a special event, you should respect their right to do so; after all, they are your brothers and sisters at arms.Unless its white people trying to adopt those traditions, music, or foods, then they are just being snide and conceded.


Yes, that also includes your gay & lesbian brothers and sisters. Their group is the newest to be welcomed openly in to our military culture, but they have always been there.

Being polite and respectful, isn't a burden, it is just the right thing to do.
PC and polite and respectful are not synonomys. PC is a way to shut down the arguements that you dont agree with.

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 02:38 PM
There is an element of truth to that, but would not that extend to the anti-PC crowd as well?

Who is being easily offended in this scenario?

An American-Samoan who sends out an email about Asian Pacific Islander Month.

A recipient who receives the email and posts a thread on MT forums calling it evidence of PC run amok?What about the union rep that wants civilian supervisors at Eglin FIRED for having a "I support Phil Robertson" sticker on their personal vehicle? Would you say the PC mafia is running amok on that one? I am not sure if I have seen the right shut down the arguement with "PC" accusations, but its a frequent tactic of the left like using the race card.




Could it be an area where our country is more advanced than the rest of the world?

I think we are trying hard to overcome racial, ethnic, gender and sexual divides in this country. We've got away to go, but the fact that we are sensitive to offending others doesn't have to be viewed as a weakness. There is no right to NOT be offended. Someone is going to do something to offend you some how, some way, without even having the slightest clue that it is offensive to you. You are the only one that will let something offend you, not society, and not race baiting victim profitiers.


I view it as a strength, at least we are trying to address it, and not ignoring it like other countries.Worrying about what other people are doing that offends you distracts you from far more important things in life. I would say thats a big weakness.


I spent a considerable part of my career in Japan and Korea. I love both countries, but both can be very racist and both are far behind the US in gender equality.And you probably offended them in many ways you never thought you did.


Political Correctness is good for our country, not bad.PC is a generic term that means you think you have majority of beliefs on your side, so there for you must be right. Politically Correct =/= correct. Biggest example, scientist say a fetus in the whomb is a living being, distinguishable from the mother. But it is not PC to say abortion kills a living being to those who believe in abortions.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 02:55 PM
Yet PC stiffles those who are uninformed from having to suffer the consequences from their statements. If I cant say something because it isnt PC, then what good does it do for me not to get it out and have you debate the issue and inform me with the correct information? Saying "Blacks have a higher single parent ratio than any other race or ethnicity" isnt exactly PC. Even if its true, it cant be said, by whites or blacks, because its a negative fact against a race of people who had been oppressed. But saying "whites have more people on food-stamps" is alright because whites haven't been oppressed. Saying "Irish were treated worse as slaves and had their population cut in half because of slavery" isnt PC either because that takes away from the notion only blacks where slaves. PC is used to redirect the arguement and keep anyone from discussing uncomfortable realities that take power away from the race baiting, sex baiting victimizers who profit greatly off atrocities of the past.

No, keeping people uninformed because its not PC to state an opinion or fact based off the notion it might offend someone is not harmony, its keeping people ignorant. That has always been the way the big government types like. Slave owners kept their slaves ignorant as much as possible. Democrats in the south kept minorities ignorant through poor schools. Establishment GOP keep people ignorant to the fact that we have caused most of the worlds strife by messing in other countries affairs for over a century now.

Not discussing stuff doesnt mean respect, its cowardace. I have liberal friends at my work, and we discuss everything. But we are respectful towards him in the manor that we dont call each other names. Its pretty easy when both people know the facts of the arguements.

Unless its white people trying to adopt those traditions, music, or foods, then they are just being snide and conceded.


PC and polite and respectful are not synonomys. PC is a way to shut down the arguements that you dont agree with.

The bolded red text of your statement supports my contention and invalidates the rest of your post.

At least the parts of your post that are coherent enough for me to understand. You need to work on expressing your ideas in written form, they are hard to follow.

I acknowledged that being PC, or polite and respectful, does cause a person to self censor, we self censor naturally. It is part of the human communication process, and an integral part of social interaction.

It doesn't have to shut down the discussion of a complex or sensitive subject, you acknowledge this in the red text portion of your post.

So which one is it?

A shut down tactic or discussing topics in a polite manner?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 03:09 PM
What about the union rep that wants civilian supervisors at Eglin for having a "I support Phil Robertson" sticker on their personal vehicle? Would you say the PC mafia is running amok on that one? I am not sure if I have seen the right shut down the arguement with "PC" accusations, but its a frequent tactic of the left like using the race card.



There is no right to NOT be offended. Someone is going to do something to offend you some how, some way, without even having the slightest clue that it is offensive to you. You are the only one that will let something offend you, not society, and not race baiting victim profitiers.

Worrying about what other people are doing that offends you distracts you from far more important things in life. I would say thats a big weakness.

And you probably offended them in many ways you never thought you did.

PC is a generic term that means you think you have majority of beliefs on your side, so there for you must be right. Politically Correct =/= correct. Biggest example, scientist say a fetus in the whomb is a living being, distinguishable from the mother. But it is not PC to say abortion kills a living being to those who believe in abortions.

Again, I refer you to the portion of your previous post that I bolded in red text.

All of the things you referenced in this post can be, and are discussed in a PC manner, or what I like to call polite and respectful.

Political correctness isn't the boogieman you are making it out to be.

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 03:27 PM
The bolded red text of your statement supports my contention and invalidates the rest of your post.How so? He doesnt pull the "PC card" and we talk about everything. IF the PC card is pulled, then the conversation is shut down, and he has actually done that when we have talked about slavery while joining a few of our black co-workers. He felt uncomfortable discussing slavery, even though it was about the Irish being slaves, around blacks because it wasnt PC for him.


At least the parts of your post that are coherent enough for me to understand. You need to work on expressing your ideas in written form, they are hard to follow.So you are going to refuse discussion on the basis of your inability to understand complex statements? Every class I take in composistion, I score an A in, so I dont believe the disconnect is on my end. Instead of writting off all of what I say because you dont understand, how about you ask for clarifications to parts that confuse you?


I acknowledged that being PC, or polite and respectful, does cause a person to self censor, we self censor naturally. It is part of the human communication process, and an integral part of social interaction.No, it really doesnt. Its not "self sensorship", its group sensorship that keeps people from expressing harsh truths. Usually only after someone says something others dont want to hear does the term "PC" get tossed in to shut down the discussion.


It doesn't have to shut down the discussion of a complex or sensitive subject, you acknowledge this in the red text portion of your post.It doesnt? It does every time because those who dont want to hear the truth, use PC to quiet those they disagree with down. Those who are debating an issue can keep going until they feel uncomfortable with what is being discussed, as in my first statement.


So which one is it? A shut down tactic or discussing topics in a polite manner?There, I fixed your post to make it more coherent. Its a shut down tactic. Discussing in a polite manner is called a debate.

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 03:40 PM
Again, I refer you to the portion of your previous post that I bolded in red text.Yeah, i must have been distracted and missed a word or two in that post. Im sorry.


All of the things you referenced in this post can be, and are discussed in a PC manner, or what I like to call polite and respectful.No they arent because people get offended at this or that and you say that is not PC. They are very touchy subjects and when people dont tip toe around the subject and say the truth, people get offended. Phil Robertson was just quoting from the bible, but everyone said he wasnt PC about his beliefs. Saying to a woman that she has no right to kill the baby in the womb isnt PC. Saying that the kids crossing the boarder illegally isnt PC. People get offended by the truth of those subjects. Eric Cantor was voted out of office because he tried to be PC and not offend someone on the immigration debates.


Political correctness isn't the boogieman you are making it out to be.
Yes it is, just because you are trying to put a fluffy spin on how PC is used, and revising the definition of PC doesnt change the fact that PC keeps people from stating hard truths about those on the left who try and live by feelings over facts.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 05:06 PM
Yeah, i must have been distracted and missed a word or two in that post. Im sorry.

No they arent because people get offended at this or that and you say that is not PC. They are very touchy subjects and when people dont tip toe around the subject and say the truth, people get offended. Phil Robertson was just quoting from the bible, but everyone said he wasnt PC about his beliefs. Saying to a woman that she has no right to kill the baby in the womb isnt PC. Saying that the kids crossing the boarder illegally isnt PC. People get offended by the truth of those subjects. Eric Cantor was voted out of office because he tried to be PC and not offend someone on the immigration debates.


Yes it is, just because you are trying to put a fluffy spin on how PC is used, and revising the definition of PC doesnt change the fact that PC keeps people from stating hard truths about those on the left who try and live by feelings over facts.

You really need to give your definition of what political correctness is before I can discuss this with you in a meaningful manner.

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 05:42 PM
You really need to give your definition of what political correctness is before I can discuss this with you in a meaningful manner.

The origional and most common definition there is. PC is speech that doesnt offend, in anyway, any protected class of person. It was origionally introduced by communist and socialist in the early 1900's to change conversation and make certain subject taboo from addressing. The left picked up this trick when they were incorporated by socialist and progressives in the last half of the 1900s so that the right "white men" can no longer show light on the destruction the left causes to minorities or women. IF a white male with right leaning political philosophies tries to debate these issues, they are shot down as being politically incorrect and bigoted. As more and more females and minorities join conservatives in the debates of the negatives of the protected classes, these people are called traitors or sell outs.

PC is clear and simply the only way the left can shut down the debate of facts against the actions and laws they put in place which only further harm those they supposedly are making the laws for in the first place.

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 06:12 PM
And just to be clear, here is the dictionaries definition.

marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology. Abbreviation: PC, P.C.

You can see the history of the term here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Rainmaker
06-17-2014, 06:44 PM
"PC" is actually Political Control. Straight out of the Marxist playbook to control speech. The diversity cult that has hijacked our institutions knows this truth:
That over time (Generations), If you control the speech of a society you can eventually control the thought. Thoughts become things. In the beginning was the word.

Does anyone really think our society is more civil and polite than it was a generation ago? The real objection to Political Correctness is that it prevents the making of value judgments of inferior workers or students based on qualification or performance under threat of a lawsuit or cutting off of funding. If you want to know who controls society, look at who you're not allowed to criticize.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 07:02 PM
The origional and most common definition there is. PC is speech that doesnt offend, in anyway, any protected class of person. It was origionally introduced by communist and socialist in the early 1900's to change conversation and make certain subject taboo from addressing. The left picked up this trick when they were incorporated by socialist and progressives in the last half of the 1900s so that the right "white men" can no longer show light on the destruction the left causes to minorities or women. IF a white male with right leaning political philosophies tries to debate these issues, they are shot down as being politically incorrect and bigoted. As more and more females and minorities join conservatives in the debates of the negatives of the protected classes, these people are called traitors or sell outs.

PC is clear and simply the only way the left can shut down the debate of facts against the actions and laws they put in place which only further harm those they supposedly are making the laws for in the first place.

I prefer the Colin's World English Dictionary's definition:

World English Dictionary

politically correct

—adj
PC demonstrating progressive ideals, esp by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, esp concerning race and gender.

I will acknowledge that the term is intertwined with progressive ideals.

However, what is wrong with avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, concerning race and gender?

Since you are claiming that PC is used to shut down an opposing view, does that mean you are incapable of putting forth an argument on a racial or gender issue without using offensive or discriminating language?

Do you really need to be offensive to express yourself?


I have heard all of the issues you mentioned earlier, from race, to abortion, gender equality and gay rights debated by right-wing personalities and politicians discussed in a non-offensive manner.

If they can do it, why can't you?

Political correctness shuts nothing down but rude and offensive speech. It really isn't the boogieman you claim.

Your boogie man appears to be a leftist agenda, and not being polite and respectful.

I go back to the working definition that I set up in the OP.

Political correctness is merely being polite and respectful. Why is that bad?

Your real dilemma appears to be that you hold ideas that have become socially unpopular and in some cases unacceptable.

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 07:43 PM
I prefer the Colin's World English Dictionary's definition:

World English Dictionary

politically correct

—adj
PC demonstrating progressive ideals, esp by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, esp concerning race and gender.

I will acknowledge that the term is intertwined with progressive ideals.

However, what is wrong with avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, concerning race and gender?

Since you are claiming that PC is used to shut down an opposing view, does that mean you are incapable of putting forth an argument on a racial or gender issue without using offensive or discriminating language?

Do you really need to be offensive to express yourself?


I have heard all of the issues you mentioned earlier, from race, to abortion, gender equality and gay rights debated by right-wing personalities and politicians discussed in a non-offensive manner.

If they can do it, why can't you?

Political correctness shuts nothing down but rude and offensive speech. It really isn't the boogieman you claim.

Your boogie man appears to be a leftist agenda, and not being polite and respectful.

I go back to the working definition that I set up in the OP.

Political correctness is merely being polite and respectful. Why is that bad?

Your real dilemma appears to be that you hold ideas that have become socially unpopular and in some cases unacceptable.

We just had to watch a video from some General in AETC about how we treat our students. His statement was as follows:

"Do not say anything that could cause your students to become upset or offended."

That's a pretty broad statement. For instance:

Joe says "Good morning John."

John says "My wife left me this morning, it's not good at all."

I've now said something that upset him. According to the briefing we recieved, that's bad on me.

Where does the line stop? Where does PC cross from being "polite and respectful" to not being able to have a normal conversation for fear of saying something wrong?

The issue isn't right now. For now, the majority of PC stuff can be related to the dead horse you keep beating about politeness and respect. How far does it go, though?

It's kind of along the lines of the NSA spying on us. For the most part, it's no big deal unless you have something to hide. But at some point it becomes intrusive into everyday activities and becomes a hinderence.

Again, I'm not talking about the point we are at currently. I'm talking about the possibility of where it could lead. Hard to guess at a hypothetical, but I think it's something to think about.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 08:03 PM
Come on SJ,

You can do better than that "Good Morning" example.

It makes no sense, John was already upset, Joe didn't upset him.

Besides, I'm sure your AETC General explained his comment about not upsetting students better than that.

We humans are continually drawing and redrawing "the line" on what is acceptable and what isn't. We've been doing it from the dawn of time.

We are dynamic in our social behavior, and we constantly adapt to new variables. That is a good thing in my opinion.

If you want an example of a human sub culture that doesn't adapt much, and that has hard lines drawn on what is socially acceptable, I say look at the Taliban, or the Wahhabist Saudis.

The have very hard and unmovable lines drawn on their social behaviors, and what they deem as offensive.

Do you really want to be that unmovable?

Where do you draw the line on line drawing?

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 08:11 PM
I prefer the Colin's World English Dictionary's definition:

World English Dictionary

politically correct

—adj
PC demonstrating progressive ideals, esp by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, esp concerning race and gender.

I will acknowledge that the term is intertwined with progressive ideals.

However, what is wrong with avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, concerning race and gender?Its not discriminatory talk about short commings of whtie male though, only the politically protected classes. People can claim "white privelage" or white racists all day long, and there isnt a single person from the left that tries to squash it by saying "thats not politically correct". You fail to understand that politically correct terms are there to stop the spot light of short commings of minorities or women (I seperate those two because women are not a minority). The right cant bring up the major drop out rate of latinos. They cant bring up the huge disparity of blacks and single parent house holds. They cant bring up that if women want to have sex all the time, they should pay for contraceptive themselves without being labeled politically incorrect. This isnt judgemental, this is trying to fix a broken system, but there cant be change with speaking on it, and 2 sides cant speak on it because one of them is judged as pollitically incorrect.


Since you are claiming that PC is used to shut down an opposing view, does that mean you are incapable of putting forth an argument on a racial or gender issue without using offensive or discriminating language?I do all the time, yet you and Geo and that other guy (cant remember his name right now) shoot down any debates with accusations of hatred, or racism, or sexism.


Do you really need to be offensive to express yourself?
Show me once where I am offensive. I'll wait...


I have heard all of the issues you mentioned earlier, from race, to abortion, gender equality and gay rights debated by right-wing personalities and politicians discussed in a non-offensive manner.And they are ususally not there on MSNBC to rebut the accusations made against them. And when they are, the people of right leaning personallities win the debates with facts. But there are so many of the "right-wingers" you claim may try to speak on these issues and stay away from politically incorrect, but actual, facts. I dont know what examples you have to support this observation or who you were watching.


If they can do it, why can't you?Again, this accusation.


Political correctness shuts nothing down but rude and offensive speech. It really isn't the boogieman you claim.Yes it does because at any time when the subject gets to blunt and facts are used, the left can claim "PC" and shut it down. Disclaimer; I am not a fan of O'Reily, but he brought up the single parent house hold issue and the left went beserk. No one went on his show to debate, they went on MSNBC to call him racist and biggoted and politically incorrect.


Your boogie man appears to be a leftist agenda, and not being polite and respectful. I respect the facts. I dont sit here calling you names as you have done to sandjames and myself. Should I say "Please observe the data", would that get you to look at the truth more openly?


I go back to the working definition that I set up in the OP.Its still the wrong definition. PC never had anything to do with politeness or res


Political correctness is merely being polite and respectful. Why is that bad?Because truth is not always going to be sugar coated and not everyone gets a prize. We cant hold everyones hands as they mess up in life and that will always be viewed as disrespectful. Will I hold the door open for you if you have your hands full? Sure. Will I give every excuse under the sun as to why blacks are so much more unemployed than any other group in the nation? Nope.


Your real dilemma appears to be that you hold ideas that have become socially unpopular and in some cases unacceptable...
...Even though they are factually correct. That is why it is called "pollically correct", and not just "correct".

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 08:14 PM
Its not discriminatory talk about short commings of whtie male though, only the politically protected classes. People can claim "white privelage" or white racists all day long, and there isnt a single person from the left that tries to squash it by saying "thats not politically correct". You fail to understand that politically correct terms are there to stop the spot light of short commings of minorities or women (I seperate those two because women are not a minority). The right cant bring up the major drop out rate of latinos. They cant bring up the huge disparity of blacks and single parent house holds. They cant bring up that if women want to have sex all the time, they should pay for contraceptive themselves without being labeled politically incorrect. This isnt judgemental, this is trying to fix a broken system, but there cant be change with speaking on it, and 2 sides cant speak on it because one of them is judged as pollitically incorrect.

I do all the time, yet you and Geo and that other guy (cant remember his name right now) shoot down any debates with accusations of hatred, or racism, or sexism.


Show me once where I am offensive. I'll wait...

And they are ususally not there on MSNBC to rebut the accusations made against them. And when they are, the people of right leaning personallities win the debates with facts. But there are so many of the "right-wingers" you claim may try to speak on these issues and stay away from politically incorrect, but actual, facts. I dont know what examples you have to support this observation or who you were watching.

Again, this accusation.

Yes it does because at any time when the subject gets to blunt and facts are used, the left can claim "PC" and shut it down. Disclaimer; I am not a fan of O'Reily, but he brought up the single parent house hold issue and the left went beserk. No one went on his show to debate, they went on MSNBC to call him racist and biggoted and politically incorrect.

I respect the facts. I dont sit here calling you names as you have done to sandjames and myself. Should I say "Please observe the data", would that get you to look at the truth more openly?

Its still the wrong definition. PC never had anything to do with politeness or res

Because truth is not always going to be sugar coated and not everyone gets a prize. We cant hold everyones hands as they mess up in life and that will always be viewed as disrespectful. Will I hold the door open for you if you have your hands full? Sure. Will I give every excuse under the sun as to why blacks are so much more unemployed than any other group in the nation? Nope.


...Even though they are factually correct. That is why it is called "pollically correct", and not just "correct".

Let me just say that your points might have a little more credibility if you didn't always make it sound like "The Man" is out to get you. To me it sounds like the only reason you care about the "PC thing" is because it doesn't benefit you. Try discussing as to how it benefits or hurts society as a whole and you may have better luck.

Measure Man
06-17-2014, 08:22 PM
Its not discriminatory talk about short commings of whtie male though, only the politically protected classes. People can claim "white privelage" or white racists all day long, and there isnt a single person from the left that tries to squash it by saying "thats not politically correct". You fail to understand that politically correct terms are there to stop the spot light of short commings of minorities or women (I seperate those two because women are not a minority). The right cant bring up the major drop out rate of latinos. They cant bring up the huge disparity of blacks and single parent house holds. They cant bring up that if women want to have sex all the time, they should pay for contraceptive themselves without being labeled politically incorrect. This isnt judgemental, this is trying to fix a broken system, but there cant be change with speaking on it, and 2 sides cant speak on it because one of them is judged as pollitically incorrect.

I guess I would have to see an example of somebody being shot down with being labeled "politically incorrect."

Most often, I see the term PC being used by the right as a way to dismiss ideas of the left.

"Oh, they are just alll PC bullshit" , etc. PC is more often used as an insult than a compliment, as far as a I see.

I don't recall anyone every being labeled politically incorrect as a way to shut them down...can you provide an example?

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 08:26 PM
Come on SJ,

You can do better than that "Good Morning" example.

It makes no sense, John was already upset, Joe didn't upset him.

Besides, I'm sure your AETC General explained his comment about not upsetting students better than that.

We humans are continually drawing and redrawing "the line" on what is acceptable and what isn't. We've been doing it from the dawn of time.

We are dynamic in our social behavior, and we constantly adapt to new variables. That is a good thing in my opinion.

If you want an example of a human sub culture that doesn't adapt much, and that has hard lines drawn on what is socially acceptable, I say look at the Taliban, or the Wahhabist Saudis.

The have very hard and unmovable lines drawn on their social behaviors, and what they deem as offensive.

Do you really want to be that unmovable?

Where do you draw the line on line drawing?

Theres a difference between taking offense in their culture of showing the bottom of your feet to them and not being able to talk about sagging pants of youth in the US. You seem to be judging another culture and being disrespectful of their way of life. Even being disrespectful of SJ views on being "unmoveable". Really, what I cant understand is why we are moving backwards (from the 50s) to what essentially equates to not being able to speak poorly of "nobility" in midevil Britian? Here's the thing. If I say something that is offensive, and you tell me it is offensive, I have two options. 1) I contimplate if you have a point and what I said really could have been offensive. 2) I completely blow you off and say it again. Which then means you as an indiviual have a choice to make. Ignore me or keep debating why I am wrong. If it turns physical, the one who threw the first shot looses. We are getting to the point where people are actually trying to ban words from the english language because they find them offensive. This isnt progress, this is authoritarian just like those people you gave examples of earlier. "Bossy" is actually trying to be struck from the english lexicon. Cockpit has been removed. Its no longer refered to as a mail man, or fireman, or chairman, or congressman, or sex (gender), or baby (fetus), or black (african American), illegal alien (undocumented worker), they all have to be unisexed now because of PC. I understand movement as a society to new acceptable behavior, but when you are banned from using certain words because they are not "PC", the line has been crossed and we are becoming more as the Taliban, not less like them.

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 08:29 PM
Theres a difference between taking offense in their culture of showing the bottom of your feet to them and not being able to talk about sagging pants of youth in the US. You seem to be judging another culture and being disrespectful of their way of life. Even being disrespectful of SJ views on being "unmoveable". Really, what I cant understand is why we are moving backwards (from the 50s) to what essentially equates to not being able to speak poorly of "nobility" in midevil Britian? Here's the thing. If I say something that is offensive, and you tell me it is offensive, I have two options. 1) I contimplate if you have a point and what I said really could have been offensive. 2) I completely blow you off and say it again. Which then means you as an indiviual have a choice to make. Ignore me or keep debating why I am wrong. If it turns physical, the one who threw the first shot looses. We are getting to the point where people are actually trying to ban words from the english language because they find them offensive. This isnt progress, this is authoritarian just like those people you gave examples of earlier. "Bossy" is actually trying to be struck from the english lexicon. Cockpit has been removed. Its no longer refered to as a mail man, or fireman, or chairman, or congressman, or sex (gender), or baby (fetus), or black (african American), illegal alien (undocumented worker), they all have to be unisexed now because of PC. I understand movement as a society to new acceptable behavior, but when you are banned from using certain words because they are not "PC", the line has been crossed and we are becoming more as the Taliban, not less like them.

Great points...I heard the "Bossy" thing a couple months ago. Apparantly it's offensive because it's generally used to refer to girls and women. I think that's a perfect example of PC going too far. Maybe what people should work on more is trying to avoid acting like the stereotype of the "offensive" word.

The other one I heard was on one of the talk shows on ESPN. They mentioned how they didn't like the phrase "sneaky fast" or "sneaky quick" because it's always used to refer to white athletes.

WILDJOKER5
06-17-2014, 08:32 PM
I guess I would have to see an example of somebody being shot down with being labeled "politically incorrect."

Most often, I see the term PC being used by the right as a way to dismiss ideas of the left.

"Oh, they are just alll PC bullshit" , etc. PC is more often used as an insult than a compliment, as far as a I see.

I don't recall anyone every being labeled politically incorrect as a way to shut them down...can you provide an example?

Yes, the term "PC" isnt used. The terms are "racist", "biggot", "sexist", "homophobic", "isomophobic", "anti-semite", "misogonyst", etc. The right does turn around and throws the "Oh, they are just alll PC bullshit" when they are called those things. "PC" doesnt carry the same infussion of taboo topic as the other terms do.

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 08:34 PM
Yes, the term "PC" isnt used. The terms are "racist", "biggot", "sexist", "homophobic", "isomophobic", "anti-semite", "misogonyst", etc. The right does turn around and throws the "Oh, they are just alll PC bullshit" when they are called those things. "PC" doesnt carry the same infussion of taboo topic as the other terms do.

So what you're saying is that "politically correct/incorrect" is a "PC" term?

sandsjames
06-17-2014, 08:44 PM
Come on SJ,

You can do better than that "Good Morning" example. Yeah, that was pretty weak.

I did hear the General say that any and all hazing is a no-no. So no more having troops calling around trying to find a "yard of flightline". I guess it's disrespectful.

Measure Man
06-17-2014, 09:30 PM
Yes, the term "PC" isnt used. The terms are "racist", "biggot", "sexist", "homophobic", "isomophobic", "anti-semite", "misogonyst", etc. The right does turn around and throws the "Oh, they are just alll PC bullshit" when they are called those things. "PC" doesnt carry the same infussion of taboo topic as the other terms do.

But, you do agree that there are racists? So, just because someone tells the truth about a racist, doesn't mean they are being politically correct.

Same with the other words...

I also agree that sometimes those words are used when they shouldn't be....

Would you also agree that words like "mental disorder", "bleeding heart" "pansy", "intolerant" "feminazi" "slut" "deviant" "abberant" "unnatural" etc. are sometimes used when they shouldn't be? i.e. is not the "right" just as guilty of shutting down discourse through name-calling as the left is? Is this also PC?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-17-2014, 10:22 PM
Its not discriminatory talk about short commings of whtie male though, only the politically protected classes. People can claim "white privelage" or white racists all day long, and there isnt a single person from the left that tries to squash it by saying "thats not politically correct". You fail to understand that politically correct terms are there to stop the spot light of short commings of minorities or women (I seperate those two because women are not a minority). The right cant bring up the major drop out rate of latinos. They cant bring up the huge disparity of blacks and single parent house holds. They cant bring up that if women want to have sex all the time, they should pay for contraceptive themselves without being labeled politically incorrect. This isnt judgemental, this is trying to fix a broken system, but there cant be change with speaking on it, and 2 sides cant speak on it because one of them is judged as pollitically incorrect.

Do you ever listen to NPR? I hear white people talking talking about issues that our minority communities face all the time, like high birth rates, drop out rates, and they aren't called racists for it.

Why? Because they don't say stuff like the short comings of the Latino, or the shortcomings of the black man.

You seem to be claiming that whites are being discriminated against, but aren't providing any evidence. That isn't even the issue we are discussing.

Besides, I have never heard anyone in the news media talk about the short comings of the white man.

You must be talking in hypotheticals here.



I do all the time, yet you and Geo and that other guy (cant remember his name right now) shoot down any debates with accusations of hatred, or racism, or sexism.

Talk about an accusation.... But, you do admit that it is possible to talk about racially sensitive issues without being offensive, or discriminatory.



Show me once where I am offensive. I'll wait...

That was a rhetorical question. You admitted that sensitive issues can be talked about without being offensive. Therefore, being PC doesn't shut down arguments.

That alone, takes the wind out of your argument. If others are able to talk about issue using the PC argument, then why can't you?

It is rhetorical, you need not answer.



And they are ususally not there on MSNBC to rebut the accusations made against them. And when they are, the people of right leaning personallities win the debates with facts. But there are so many of the "right-wingers" you claim may try to speak on these issues and stay away from politically incorrect, but actual, facts. I dont know what examples you have to support this observation or who you were watching.

Then that would be an example of a leftist being Un-PC.

It does nothing to forward your argument of political correctness being bad.



Again, this accusation.

Again, rhetorical.

Your response to rhetorical questions as if they are accusations could be interpreted as a bogus accusation, but I'll let you slide.



Yes it does because at any time when the subject gets to blunt and facts are used, the left can claim "PC" and shut it down. Disclaimer; I am not a fan of O'Reily, but he brought up the single parent house hold issue and the left went beserk. No one went on his show to debate, they went on MSNBC to call him racist and biggoted and politically incorrect.

Didn't hear it or see it, so I can't comment on this instance. If I take it as you describe it, it again, sounds like an example of some leftist being unfair.

It doesn't advance your argument that being PC is bad.



I respect the facts. I dont sit here calling you names as you have done to sandjames and myself. Should I say "Please observe the data", would that get you to look at the truth more openly?

Again, your real problem appears to be the leftist agenda, and not the concept of being polite and respectful. That isn't calling you a name.



Its still the wrong definition. PC never had anything to do with politeness or res

It is the working definition that I set up in the OP, and I think it is pretty close to the one from the dictionary above.

Plus, the OP dealt largely with being PC in the duty section and specifically with gays and lesbians.

The conversation has since drifted, no big deal, I still stand by my earlier comments.



Because truth is not always going to be sugar coated and not everyone gets a prize. We cant hold everyones hands as they mess up in life and that will always be viewed as disrespectful. Will I hold the door open for you if you have your hands full? Sure. Will I give every excuse under the sun as to why blacks are so much more unemployed than any other group in the nation? Nope.

And you have already admitted that you can talk about such things as black unemployment without being PC, so what's the problem?

Just out of curiosity, why are blacks so much more unemployed than any other group?



...Even though they are factually correct. That is why it is called "pollically correct", and not just "correct".

This is getting tedious, I don't even remember what this was in response to. Besides, I gave you enough to keep you busy for a while. If you really want that answered I can do it later.

Measure Man
06-17-2014, 10:39 PM
Which then means you as an indiviual have a choice to make. Ignore me or keep debating why I am wrong. If it turns physical, the one who threw the first shot looses.

Or 3) Publically shame you as an insensitive jerk. i.e Call you politically incorrect.


We are getting to the point where people are actually trying to ban words from the english language because they find them offensive. This isnt progress, this is authoritarian just like those people you gave examples of earlier. "Bossy" is actually trying to be struck from the english lexicon. Cockpit has been removed. Its no longer refered to as a mail man, or fireman, or chairman, or congressman, or sex (gender), or baby (fetus), or black (african American), illegal alien (undocumented worker), they all have to be unisexed now because of PC. I understand movement as a society to new acceptable behavior, but when you are banned from using certain words because they are not "PC", the line has been crossed and we are becoming more as the Taliban, not less like them.

I don't favor banning words.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 12:07 PM
So what you're saying is that "politically correct/incorrect" is a "PC" term?

No, the term "PC" just doesnt have the power as the others. The right call out the BS when the debates are turned down by the left as being "racist" etc. The right refuses to talk about certain aspects of American life because they are scared it isnt "PC".

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 12:19 PM
But, you do agree that there are racists? So, just because someone tells the truth about a racist, doesn't mean they are being politically correct.Are there racists? Sure, on both sides. Does the left get called on theirs? No. Does the right get unfairly called racist for a debate that isnt racist at all, just stating facts? Yes.


Same with the other words...

I also agree that sometimes those words are used when they shouldn't be....

Would you also agree that words like "mental disorder", "bleeding heart" "pansy", "intolerant" "feminazi" "slut" "deviant" "abberant" "unnatural" etc. are sometimes used when they shouldn't be? i.e. is not the "right" just as guilty of shutting down discourse through name-calling as the left is? Is this also PC?Are all of these words just generic topics, because I can think of both sides saying just about each word in arguments from time to time, except the left saying "feminazi". Are these words designed to shut down discussion? Yes, because they are designed to take a swipe at the oppositions charater instead of the topic at hand? Could Rush or Bill Mauher refrain from calling women they dont like "sluts"? Sure. The contrast to those two is that Rush was talking about someone who wanted sex anytime she liked and have the government pay for it, Bill was just degrading a woman on the other side. But I get your point. And yes, Slut, and pansy are politically incorrect, so just using them, those people lose the battle already.

The point is, name calling is when you lose the arguement, reguardless of whether or not you are factually correct. Clive Bundy lost his "debate" with one scientific, yet non-PC word, when that video was released. More focus was on the scientific "n-word", not the slanderous one", than on the points that he made.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 01:23 PM
Do you ever listen to NPR? I hear white people talking talking about issues that our minority communities face all the time, like high birth rates, drop out rates, and they aren't called racists for it.

Why? Because they don't say stuff like the short comings of the Latino, or the shortcomings of the black man.

You seem to be claiming that whites are being discriminated against, but aren't providing any evidence. That isn't even the issue we are discussing.

Besides, I have never heard anyone in the news media talk about the short comings of the white man.

You must be talking in hypotheticals here.So saying "White privelage" or saying racism didnt start till colonial America isnt talking bad about whites? I gave you the leaflet and news article of the DOJ funded conference a month ago.

I also dont hear FNC say "short commings of..." when they talk about blacks or latinos, but typically they get bashed for speaking their mind. Glenn Beck was target numero uno when he would give "black history Fridays" shows. And he spoke about accomplishments of blacks. But sense he was on FNC, he was labeled a racist.

And question about the NPR reports, what are they saying about the drop out rate or the high single parent rate (not birth rate)? What do they attribute it to? Is it the white mans fault for not teaching blacks the consequences of sex or not making school coencide with their ethnic background?


Talk about an accusation.... But, you do admit that it is possible to talk about racially sensitive issues without being offensive, or discriminatory.
I do it all the time. I stay on topic and on the facts. I dont use discriminatory language. But facts are often offensive when they show a negative to people who dont want to take ownership of their faults.


That was a rhetorical question. You admitted that sensitive issues can be talked about without being offensive. Therefore, being PC doesn't shut down arguments.

That alone, takes the wind out of your argument. If others are able to talk about issue using the PC argument, then why can't you?

It is rhetorical, you need not answer.Um, people will be offended by the truth they dont want to hear. Thats why its a "sensitive" issue.


And you have already admitted that you can talk about such things as black unemployment without being PC, so what's the problem?

Just out of curiosity, why are blacks so much more unemployed than any other group?Honestly? I think it has something to do with government handouts. That and criminal records for non-violent drug possesion.


This is getting tedious, I don't even remember what this was in response to. Besides, I gave you enough to keep you busy for a while. If you really want that answered I can do it later.
As its been said before, PC was created to divert the conversation from sensitive subjects that felt like people didnt have a place to speak on. Ie, men cant speak on abortion, whites cant speak on blacks, rich cant speak on poor. And the left has done such a great job of projecting themselves as the part of women, minorities, and poor that they are the only ones that are allowed to make laws in reference to those groups. And when the right comes up with facts to show how their policies dont work, the right is labeled as "out of touch" or "trying to bring back slavery", or "put women back into the kitchen".

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 01:28 PM
Or 3) Publically shame you as an insensitive jerk. i.e Call you politically incorrect.Exactly what PC was created for. I dont know if you were being sarcastic on this, but you pretty much nailed the point home with your statement here. I dont care if I am insensitive. Telling some kids that the stove is hot isnt enough. You can either let them get burned, or be incensitive and be stern with them while hurting their feelings, but at least they dont get burned.


I don't favor banning words.
I know you are reasonable enough not to condone actions like that.

You know the 3 scientific names for the races of the world right? What is the only one that is still able to be used without having a PC wirlwind attacking it?

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 01:55 PM
Here's a PC instance. You cant be on the right and disagree with Obama, if you do, then you must be racist. The right wont be able to disagree with Ms. Clinton either, or they will be sexist.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 01:57 PM
Here's a PC instance. You cant be on the right and disagree with Obama, if you do, then you must be racist. The right wont be able to disagree with Ms. Clinton either, or they will be sexist.

*slaps forehead*

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 02:01 PM
Did you know queer is a word just to mean "out of the ordinary"? But its PC not to use it anymore. Its not very "PC" for a 21 yo woman who is a daughter of the Dugards to pose with an AR-15 and post the pic to social media. Its not PC to suggest women protect themselves from rapist with a gun or martial arts. It wasnt PC for one of the beauty padgent contestants to second guess Obama on the Bergdahl trade.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 02:08 PM
So saying "White privelage" or saying racism didnt start till colonial America isnt talking bad about whites? I gave you the leaflet and news article of the DOJ funded conference a month ago.

Try reading that out loud, and then ask yourself if it clearly expresses a point that can be followed.

Then look at what it is in response to. You aren't making a coherent argument, or event expressing coherent ideas.

When you write responses that are so muddled and unclear, it is hard for me to take you serious.

Put a little more effort into what you are saying, please,



*
I also dont hear FNC say "short commings of..." when they talk about blacks or latinos, but typically they get bashed for speaking their mind. Glenn Beck was target numero uno when he would give "black history Fridays" shows. And he spoke about accomplishments of blacks. But sense he was on FNC, he was labeled a racist.

And question about the NPR reports, what are they saying about the drop out rate or the high single parent rate (not birth rate)? What do they attribute it to? Is it the white mans fault for not teaching blacks the consequences of sex or not making school coencide with their ethnic background?


I do it all the time. I stay on topic and on the facts. I dont use discriminatory language. But facts are often offensive when they show a negative to people who dont want to take ownership of their faults.

Um, people will be offended by the truth they dont want to hear. Thats why its a "sensitive" issue.

Honestly? I think it has something to do with government handouts. That and criminal records for non-violent drug possesion.


As its been said before, PC was created to divert the conversation from sensitive subjects that felt like people didnt have a place to speak on. Ie, men cant speak on abortion, whites cant speak on blacks, rich cant speak on poor. And the left has done such a great job of projecting themselves as the part of women, minorities, and poor that they are the only ones that are allowed to make laws in reference to those groups. And when the right comes up with facts to show how their policies dont work, the right is labeled as "out of touch" or "trying to bring back slavery", or "put women back into the kitchen".

Your grievance appears to be with leftists who you think are unfair in their messaging, and not the concept of being polite and respectful.

I created this thread to try to get people to look at political correctness in a different light.

I also knew it would draw a strong response from those who routinely throw up their hands and shout, "PC bullshit" whenever they hear something they don't like.

Your characterization of the right being beaten into submission by the PC left is a gross exaggeration.

Do you think there is even the slightest possibility, that right-wing media outlets are manipulating you on some level? Even a tiny bit?

Sure, there are those on the left that go overboard, but why should that compel you to jump overboard on the right side of the boat?

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 02:12 PM
*slaps forehead*
Yeah, I know, you dont believe that ever happens without proof right?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 02:20 PM
Here's a PC instance. You cant be on the right and disagree with Obama, if you do, then you must be racist. The right wont be able to disagree with Ms. Clinton either, or they will be sexist.

Here is an instance of you exaggerating.

I spend hours upon hours watching the news, reading newspapers, magazines and the number of people who disagree with Obama is large. They aren't being called racists for it either.

As part of my course work, I routinely discuss politics and foreign policy with my fellow students. I also disagree with Obama and Clinton on numerous issues. I have never been called a racist or a sexist.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 02:27 PM
Try reading that out loud, and then ask yourself if it clearly expresses a point that can be followed.

Then look at what it is in response to. You aren't making a coherent argument, or event expressing coherent ideas.

When you write responses that are so muddled and unclear, it is hard for me to take you serious.

Put a little more effort into what you are saying, please,Not sure why you have such poor reading comprehension, should I dumb it down for you a little? You asked for examples of people talking bad about whites. And that wasnt even a good response to my post that there is no PC rules restricting speech against offensive language towards white males. So I gave you one example.


Your grievance appears to be with leftists who you think are unfair in their messaging, and not the concept of being polite and respectful.

I created this thread to try to get people to look at political correctness in a different light.
The problem you are running into is that PC and the left go hand in hand, while you are trying to seperate the two. PC is not about respect, its about diverting the topic from touchy subjects of protected classes of people who dont want to hear the truth. It always has been that way, and I wont let you high jack the term to mean something it doesnt. The left always does this with terms that are associated with them and reflect a negative light. The left have also stolen other terms like "liberal" and changed the definition and philisophy 180 deg from its origional meaning.


I also knew it would draw a strong response from those who routinely throw up their hands and shout, "PC bullshit" whenever they hear something they don't like.Like being called racist on responses with facts the left doesnt like?


Your characterization of the right being beaten into submission by the PC left is a gross exaggeration. No, its pretty obvious. There are more than enough reasons the right should start impeaching Obama, but do you really think it would be PC to impeach the first black POTUS?


Do you think there is even the slightest possibility, that right-wing media outlets are manipulating you on some level? Even a tiny bit?No, I have done my research and know what I am talking about. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the beginning of the term and the mannor in which it was used doesnt mean I am wrong, it means you are trying to change the word orange into representing the color silver.


Sure, there are those on the left that go overboard, but why should that compel you to jump overboard on the right side of the boat?
To right the ship obviously and keep it from tipping over.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 02:34 PM
Here is an instance of you exaggerating.

I spend hours upon hours watching the news, reading newspapers, magazines and the number of people who disagree with Obama is large. They aren't being called racists for it either.

As part of my course work, I routinely discuss politics and foreign policy with my fellow students. I also disagree with Obama and Clinton on numerous issues. I have never been called a racist or a sexist.

Should I direct you to Shelia Jackson Lee or Al Sharpton? Debbie Washeman-shultz? You have never heard them call the right racist for filibustering nominees? Never heard the left call the TEA party racist? Really?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 02:40 PM
So saying "White privelage" or saying racism didnt start till colonial America isnt talking bad about whites? I gave you the leaflet and news article of the DOJ funded conference a month ago.

Will someone else please chime in and tell this guy that he crafted a sentence that doesn't communicate a coherent thought.

He obviously is reluctant to take any advice from me.

Can someone else help him? He is in desperate need of it.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 02:46 PM
Will someone else please chime in and tell this guy that he crafted a sentence that doesn't communicate a coherent thought.

He obviously is reluctant to take any advice from me.

Can someone else help him? He is in desperate need of it.

You're too late in the game, dude. I, and many others, have already tried. Every discussion between WJ5 and I usually ends up with me throwing my hands up in the air, and letting him have the last word... since I believe that that's all he really wants anyway.

I don't know if he's trying to confuse people on purpose, or if he's confused himself. Either way, there's only so much I can take before I say "fuck it."

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 02:47 PM
Should I direct you to Shelia Jackson Lee or Al Sharpton? Debbie Washeman-shultz? You have never heard them call the right racist for filibustering nominees? Never heard the left call the TEA party racist? Really?

Then you should have brought up those particular personalities in the first place, and provided examples of them being outlandish.

Instead, you said that anyone who disagrees with Obama is labeled a racist.

As I said before, you need to put a little more effort into crafting your posts.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 02:58 PM
You're too late in the game, dude. I, and many others, have already tried. Every discussion between WJ5 and I usually ends up with me throwing my hands up in the air, and letting him have the last word... since I believe that that's all he really wants anyway.

I don't know if he's trying to confuse people on purpose, or if he's confused himself. Either way, there's only so much I can take before I say "fuck it."

You are right, but I do like to be an optimist once in a while.

I did have a modicum of success with him once, the time I got him to admit that his signature block was bewildering.

It is still bewildering, but at least he added a website to it, so someone can go look up what it means.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 03:12 PM
Then you should have brought up those particular personalities in the first place and provided examples of them being outlandish.

Instead, you said that anyone who disagrees with Obama is labeled a racist.

As I said before, you need to put a little more effort into crafting your posts.

As I have said to you, or should I just back out with saying "it was rhetorical". This whole thread has been nothing but vagueness and a poor attempt to combine PC and not offending anyone. You cant refrain from offending everyone in a debate when there is ugly truths. Yes, people can refrain from saying slanderous terminology, but there can still be offensive stats and facts that people will get all up in arms about. You mentioned in the OP this...
Every culture is proud of their heritage, traditions, music, and food. When a group wants to celebrate their culture with a special event, you should respect their right to do so; after all, they are your brothers and sisters at arms.
But I am sure you cant fathom how impossible that is when you actaully add in EVERY CULTURE. Are you truly for EVERY culture being able to celebrate and live and do as they like? I would venture to say no since you brought up the taliban earlier and pretty much looked down your nose at their culture. I am pretty sure you wouldnt want to just let a Klan rally go on in your neighborhood. Doubt you are "ok" with a neo-nazi meeting a few doors down. Not sure what your take would be on the NBPs holding a rally at a public school. How do you view Jay-z and his support of black suppremisist group 5%ers?

These are cultures, sub-cultures, and micro groups that exist in the world. And the great circle of idiocracy that is spouted off like "We have no tolerance for the intolerant". Kind of like Obi-Wan showing that the Jedi were really siths in disguise when he said "ONLY the sith deal in absolutes." If you are intolerant of those who are intolerant, doesnt that make you hate yourself?

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 03:21 PM
Are there racists? Sure, on both sides. Does the left get called on theirs? No.

Really? You seem to call them on it a lot.


Does the right get unfairly called racist for a debate that isnt racist at all, just stating facts? Yes.

Okay...you seem to think tha the left plays dirty all the time and right only deals in facts and serious discourse...LOL


Are all of these words just generic topics, because I can think of both sides saying just about each word in arguments from time to time, except the left saying "feminazi". Are these words designed to shut down discussion? Yes, because they are designed to take a swipe at the oppositions charater instead of the topic at hand? Could Rush or Bill Mauher refrain from calling women they dont like "sluts"? Sure. The contrast to those two is that Rush was talking about someone who wanted sex anytime she liked and have the government pay for it, Bill was just degrading a woman on the other side.

See...here you are not dealing with the facts, but only what you've been told by a biased news sourse.

Have you read her statement? No, Rush was not talking about someone who wanted sex anytime...he was talking about a woman who raised a point that some women need birth control for things other than birth control. You really should read her statement and find anywhere in there that she suggested she wanted to have sex.


But I get your point. And yes, Slut, and pansy are politically incorrect, so just using them, those people lose the battle already.

Agree.


The point is, name calling is when you lose the arguement, reguardless of whether or not you are factually correct. Clive Bundy lost his "debate" with one scientific, yet non-PC word, when that video was released. More focus was on the scientific "n-word", not the slanderous one", than on the points that he made.

I don't think that's where he lost the argument. I think he lost it when he wondered aloud if they were better off as slaves. Is it "okay" to wonder about things? Perhaps...but, that is where he lost.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 03:28 PM
Exactly what PC was created for. I dont know if you were being sarcastic on this, but you pretty much nailed the point home with your statement here. I dont care if I am insensitive. Telling some kids that the stove is hot isnt enough. You can either let them get burned, or be incensitive and be stern with them while hurting their feelings, but at least they dont get burned.

Well, no not really sarcastic. You gave a couple options...that people could ignore you or argue to the point of fisticuffs. Or call you out and publically shame you...which is essentially what PC is.

So...after considering your first two options, I'm not sure why PC is bad again. Better than punching you in the nose, isn't it?


I know you are reasonable enough not to condone actions like that.

You know the 3 scientific names for the races of the world right? What is the only one that is still able to be used without having a PC wirlwind attacking it?

You are probably thinking Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negro....I think since then Malay is considered a race and something for American Indians. I don't think the 'races' are a hard and fast scientific fact...there are several versions out there depending on who you listen to.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 03:33 PM
Really? You seem to call them on it a lot.Me =/= news media


Okay...you seem to think tha the left plays dirty all the time and right only deals in facts and serious discourse...LOLTypically, yes. BUT, if I cant find the facts to back up what the right says, I call them on it. I argue against banning same sex marriages all the time. But I am really just a firm believer in fact that government should have no say in approving any consenting adults to be married anyways, which is a big road block for both sides. I am ok with Same-sex couples adoption with the same checks as hetrosexual couples. No special stipulations. I am against interventionalism that the right tries to parade around to beat the drums of war. There is a lot I dont agree with on the right and their philosophies. But raising an arguement against them doesnt get me called names nearly as much as when I try to debate leftist POVs.


See...here you are not dealing with the facts, but only what you've been told by a biased news sourse.

Have you read her statement? No, Rush was not talking about someone who wanted sex anytime...he was talking about a woman who raised a point that some women need birth control for things other than birth control. You really should read her statement and find anywhere in there that she suggested she wanted to have sex.You are telling me these drugs are offered no where else but in contraceptives?


I don't think that's where he lost the argument. I think he lost it when he wondered aloud if they were better off as slaves. Is it "okay" to wonder about things? Perhaps...but, that is where he lost.Yes, another PC area that whites cant talk about. Even though it was factually true, he wasnt allowed to talk about it.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 03:39 PM
Well, no not really sarcastic. You gave a couple options...that people could ignore you or argue to the point of fisticuffs. Or call you out and publically shame you...which is essentially what PC is.

So...after considering your first two options, I'm not sure why PC is bad again. Better than punching you in the nose, isn't it?No, because that is shutting down the debate. Pretty much the same as fisticuffs. If you cant beat them, shame them.


You are probably thinking Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negro....I think since then Malay is considered a race and something for American Indians. I don't think the 'races' are a hard and fast scientific fact...there are several versions out there depending on who you listen to.
True. I have seen other versions with several subsets of races. But AIs were considered Mongoloid till the mixture of caucasian. And middle eastern is a combination as well.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 03:41 PM
You know the 3 scientific names for the races of the world right? What is the only one that is still able to be used without having a PC wirlwind attacking it?

This is actually a good point. Assuming again we're talking Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negro.

WHY do you think Caucasian is the only one now allowed in polite company?

Could it be...oh, I dunno...that they other two have been thrown about as INSULTS for the past 200 years?

I think another good illutration of the PC of words concerns those folks who have low Intelligence. Years ago, the term Moron was and maybe still is the technically correct term.

Then...people throw that word as an INSULT to others..."Hey ya Moron"...so, the word morphed into an insult rather than a technically correct term, so it became more polite to speak about low intelligence folks by saying, "Oh, he's not a moron, he just retarded" root word: Retard: to slow or delay. as in flame retardant...a perfectly nice word.

But, then, it became an INSULT..."What're you retarded?"..."ya bunch of retards" and now it is the "R" word, not to be uttered amongst polite company.

So, then when dealing with issues for the real people...we started to say "Special"...and of course that has become an INSULT...do it became Challenged...or Developmentally Disabled...or what...they just keep chaning what is acceptable when the old word starts being used as an insult.

So, it might not be the PC-crowd that is ruining words...it could be people using them as insults to ostracize, outcast and bully people who are different...or insult others by saying "You are like those outcasts"

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 03:43 PM
Me =/= news media

Typically, yes. BUT, if I cant find the facts to back up what the right says, I call them on it. I argue against banning same sex marriages all the time. But I am really just a firm believer in fact that government should have no say in approving any consenting adults to be married anyways, which is a big road block for both sides. I am ok with Same-sex couples adoption with the same checks as hetrosexual couples. No special stipulations. I am against interventionalism that the right tries to parade around to beat the drums of war. There is a lot I dont agree with on the right and their philosophies. But raising an arguement against them doesnt get me called names nearly as much as when I try to debate leftist POVs.

You are telling me these drugs are offered no where else but in contraceptives?

Yes, another PC area that whites cant talk about. Even though it was factually true, he wasnt allowed to talk about it.

Which one of Clive Bundy's statements do you mean is factually true?

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 03:52 PM
Me =/= news media

fox news does it all the time, too.

Another thing I don't get is why the "right" is constantly harping on the news media...if you dont like it, change the channel. What's the big deal?


Typically, yes. BUT, if I cant find the facts to back up what the right says, I call them on it. I argue against banning same sex marriages all the time. But I am really just a firm believer in fact that government should have no say in approving any consenting adults to be married anyways, which is a big road block for both sides.

We agree again.


I am ok with Same-sex couples adoption with the same checks as hetrosexual couples. No special stipulations. I am against interventionalism that the right tries to parade around to beat the drums of war. There is a lot I dont agree with on the right and their philosophies. But raising an arguement against them doesnt get me called names nearly as much as when I try to debate leftist POVs.

I get called names all the time by those more conservative than I. My Facebook is constant barrage of Meme's calling liberals all kinds of names. I don't consider myself a liberal, at least not in the contemporary use of the word...but, still. God knows they've got enough names for Obama...Obummer, Odumbo, Obliar, ...in fact, last time I went to the Tea Party website, it seems the majority of their message is Meme's making up funny sounding names for Obama.

During the elections...why do you think Ann Coulter and friends made such a big point about saying Obamas middle name, oh and saying it LOUD? I don't know if she's still doing it, but she used to never just say "Obama"...she always said, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"....of course in an effort to highlight the fact that "He's not like you...he has a funny name"


You are telling me these drugs are offered no where else but in contraceptives?

I'm not telling you anything...I'm just telling you nothing that woman said hinted she wanted to have sex all the time.


Yes, another PC area that whites cant talk about. Even though it was factually true, he wasnt allowed to talk about it.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 03:55 PM
No, because that is shutting down the debate. Pretty much the same as fisticuffs. If you cant beat them, shame them.

Valid point. 2 points!

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 03:58 PM
This is actually a good point. Assuming again we're talking Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negro.

WHY do you think Caucasian is the only one now allowed in polite company?

Could it be...oh, I dunno...that they other two have been thrown about as INSULTS for the past 200 years?

I think another good illutration of the PC of words concerns those folks who have low Intelligence. Years ago, the term Moron was and maybe still is the technically correct term.

Then...people throw that word as an INSULT to others..."Hey ya Moron"...so, the word morphed into an insult rather than a technically correct term, so it became more polite to speak about low intelligence folks by saying, "Oh, he's not a moron, he just retarded" root word: Retard: to slow or delay. as in flame retardant...a perfectly nice word.

But, then, it became an INSULT..."What're you retarded?"..."ya bunch of retards" and now it is the "R" word, not to be uttered amongst polite company.

So, then when dealing with issues for the real people...we started to say "Special"...and of course that has become an INSULT...do it became Challenged...or Developmentally Disabled...or what...they just keep chaning what is acceptable when the old word starts being used as an insult.

So, it might not be the PC-crowd that is ruining words...it could be people using them as insults to ostracize, outcast and bully people who are different...or insult others by saying "You are like those outcasts"

Is the word "cracka" thrown as an insult? It was origionally used to describe someone from FL. But, will you be worried about riots or capital hill meetings if this term was used to describe a white congressman to his face? Only one side uses the PC terminology to stir up the base, even when there is no evidence to support the accusation.

But I agree with you on the whole name calling issue, like calling an opposition political party terrorist. Or saying that gun owners are terrorizing everyone else. Or saying people cling to their guns and bibles. Or calling an entier group racist because they are against the policies of the first black POTUS. Lumping of people into groups and shaming them all based on a few....hm.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 04:04 PM
Is the word "cracka" thrown as an insult?

"Cracka" was actually originated by whites, and was used originally to insult poor whites. The word comes from the fact that general stores used to have barrels of free crackers that poor whites would gather around to socialize and eat from.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 04:29 PM
Which one of Clive Bundy's statements do you mean is factually true?

The want and desire to stay together as a family unit was stronger during slavery than it is today.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 04:36 PM
fox news does it all the time, too.

Another thing I don't get is why the "right" is constantly harping on the news media...if you dont like it, change the channel. What's the big deal?
Thats why I dont watch FNC anymore.



I get called names all the time by those more conservative than I. My Facebook is constant barrage of Meme's calling liberals all kinds of names. I don't consider myself a liberal, at least not in the contemporary use of the word...but, still. God knows they've got enough names for Obama...Obummer, Odumbo, Obliar, ...in fact, last time I went to the Tea Party website, it seems the majority of their message is Meme's making up funny sounding names for Obama.The vile and contemptual words I see from the left when I would post on "Being Liberal" was agregious. If I disagree with cons on their pages, nothing even close to the vulgarity I got from the left. Yes, is there memes and funny posts, sure. But they arent disparaging.


During the elections...why do you think Ann Coulter and friends made such a big point about saying Obamas middle name, oh and saying it LOUD? I don't know if she's still doing it, but she used to never just say "Obama"...she always said, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"....of course in an effort to highlight the fact that "He's not like you...he has a funny name"I never agreed with Ann. They did the same to Paul really. Now they are kind of signing the same tune as Paul had 2 years ago.


I'm not telling you anything...I'm just telling you nothing that woman said hinted she wanted to have sex all the time.
The call was for these drugs to be distributed through contraceptives. Why didnt she ask for those drugs to be availible through other means?

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 04:37 PM
Is the word "cracka" thrown as an insult? It was origionally used to describe someone from FL. But, will you be worried about riots or capital hill meetings if this term was used to describe a white congressman to his face? Only one side uses the PC terminology to stir up the base, even when there is no evidence to support the accusation.

But I agree with you on the whole name calling issue, like calling an opposition political party terrorist. Or saying that gun owners are terrorizing everyone else. Or saying people cling to their guns and bibles. Or calling an entier group racist because they are against the policies of the first black POTUS. Lumping of people into groups and shaming them all based on a few....hm.

yeah...like that.

Only I disagree that only the Left does it...or only the Left does it well.

If you can't see the that the Right does it equally as much...you are only seeing what you want to see, I believe.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 04:37 PM
"Cracka" was actually originated by whites, and was used originally to insult poor whites. The word comes from the fact that general stores used to have barrels of free crackers that poor whites would gather around to socialize and eat from.

Well, I guess public school system sucks again. I was taught it came from FL slave owners "cracking" the whips.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 04:42 PM
The want and desire to stay together as a family unit was stronger during slavery than it is today.

Back in the 90's, the KKK was parroting that one around, and suggesting that whites be proud of that word because of it... it meant that they were cracking whips on blacks. But that soon got debunked.

In truth, the slave owners usually weren't the ones whipping the slaves themselves. They usually had a slave designated to do it, usually the strongest one who was perceived to be able to inflict the most pain.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 04:43 PM
yeah...like that.

Only I disagree that only the Left does it...or only the Left does it well.

If you can't see the that the Right does it equally as much...you are only seeing what you want to see, I believe.

Thats why I gave examples. I am pretty sure the right went on to say "disagreeing with [Bush 43] was unpatriotic" in the lead up to Iraq II or signing of the (non)-PATRIOT act. I am sorry, I have forgotten myself in only talking about left/right politics when its actually authoritarian/libertarians that are actually squaring off. The establishment GOP uses the name calling to describe the TEA party as well. But I dont think just "name calling" is the same as PC issue. PC refers to more about what is considered "taboo" to talk about. Typically its one group of people being labeled as a protected class and taboo for someone else to speak on touchy subjects, even if the protected class is ignoring the problems.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 04:45 PM
Back in the 90's, the KKK was parroting that one around, and suggesting that whites be proud of that word because of it... it meant that they were cracking whips on blacks. But that soon got debunked.

In truth, the slave owners usually weren't the ones whipping the slaves themselves. They usually had a slave designated to do it, usually the strongest one who was perceived to be able to inflict the most pain.

I dont know why I cant give out likes here, but thanks for the update.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 04:57 PM
Thats why I dont watch FNC anymore.

So the "right" does it, yes? FNC is "the right" aren't they?


The vile and contemptual words I see from the left when I would post on "Being Liberal" was agregious. If I disagree with cons on their pages, nothing even close to the vulgarity I got from the left. Yes, is there memes and funny posts, sure. But they arent disparaging.

I don't believe it. I mean, I believe you were called vile and contemptual things on "Being liberal", but I don't believe you wouldn't get the same treatment for posting a liberal viewpont on conservative pages...perhaps your POV wasn't all that liberal or something.

Go to Conservative Daily and post "Obama was pretty reasonable here" under any of the articles about him...and see what you get.


I never agreed with Ann. They did the same to Paul really. Now they are kind of signing the same tune as Paul had 2 years ago.

The call was for these drugs to be distributed through contraceptives. Why didnt she ask for those drugs to be availible through other means?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 05:05 PM
"Cracka" was actually originated by whites, and was used originally to insult poor whites. The word comes from the fact that general stores used to have barrels of free crackers that poor whites would gather around to socialize and eat from.

Close, but there is a little more to it than that. It actually originates from the Scottish Gaelic word "craic" which means to gossip and have a good time, especially while drinking.

The Scotts-Irish were some of the poorest immigrants to the New World in the 1600's and usually came over as indentured servants. After serving their contracts, they typically set out for the frontier, Appalachia and other areas in the South.

They were largely despised by the English, who would refer to them as crackers because of their tendency to stick together and have a "craic."

As time progressed, it did become associated with any poor white, and did become an insult.

The term Redneck was also associated with the early Scotts-Irish because some wore red scarves as a sign of protest when groups of them were resettled to Northern Ireland.

Both redneck and cracker were originally associated with early Scotts-Irish immigrants.

If you go to Northern Ireland today and call one of the Protestants a Scotts Irish, they will quickly inform you there is no such thing, they are Ulster Scotts in their mind. Scotts-Irish is purely an American term.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 05:16 PM
Close, but there is a little more to it than that. It actually originates from the Scottish Gaelic word "craic" which means to gossip and have a good time, especially while drinking.

The Scotts-Irish were some of the poorest immigrants to the New World in the 1600's and usually came over as indentured servants. After serving their contracts, they typically set out for the frontier, Appalachia and other areas in the South.

They were largely despised by the English, who would refer to them as crackers because of their tendency to stick together and have a "craic."

As time progressed, it did become associated with any poor white, and did become an insult.

The term Redneck was also associated with the early Scotts-Irish because some wore red scarves as a sign of protest when groups of them were resettled to Northern Ireland.

Both redneck and cracker were originally associated with early Scotts-Irish immigrants.

If you go to Northern Ireland today and call one of the Protestants a Scotts Irish, they will quickly inform you there is no such thing, they are Ulster Scotts in their mind. Scotts-Irish is purely an American term.Intersting history lessons for the day.

BTW, the bold is another PC narrative. Irish were slaves, not indentured servants. Just because some gained freedom doesnt mean they could all do the same. That would be like saying "Freddrick Douglas gained freedom of his contract, Africans were endentured servants." To suggest whites were slaves, and even recieved worse treatment takes the power away from race profiteers of the left. So discussion of this part of the slave trade market is leftout of the history books and never mentioned when someone says "The founders were racist because they considered Blacks 3/5ths a person".

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 05:34 PM
The want and desire to stay together as a family unit was stronger during slavery than it is today.

That is very twisted logic to think that any group would be better off under slavery.

I'm sure any family would have a strong desire to remain together, when living under the fear that a son or daughter could be sold away, to never be seen again.

How in the hell can you call a preposterous statement like that as being factual, in the first place?

How would one go about measuring an entire group's desire?

It is obviously an opinion, and a very misguided one, and an insulting one.

If you are wondering why you have been called a racist, that should be a big clue for you right there.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 05:40 PM
Thats why I gave examples. I am pretty sure the right went on to say "disagreeing with [Bush 43] was unpatriotic" in the lead up to Iraq II or signing of the (non)-PATRIOT act.

Yeah...remember the hell the Dixie Chicks caught for comments about Bush?


I am sorry, I have forgotten myself in only talking about left/right politics when its actually authoritarian/libertarians that are actually squaring off.

Ok. I'll buy that. Seems to me when people gain power, they want to be Authoritarian.


The establishment GOP uses the name calling to describe the TEA party as well.

What do they call them?

This whole internal struggle for the GOP is kind of fascinating to me. I do think it will result in another Democratic President in 2016 though.


But I dont think just "name calling" is the same as PC issue. PC refers to more about what is considered "taboo" to talk about. Typically its one group of people being labeled as a protected class and taboo for someone else to speak on touchy subjects, even if the protected class is ignoring the problems.

I don't know about taboo subjects. Usually when we here the term bandied about it's because of something like the diversity 5K run. People who do NOT want to see/hear/think about people being different say recognizing differences is Politically Correct BS.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 05:43 PM
I don't think that's where he lost the argument. I think he lost it when he wondered aloud if they were better off as slaves. Is it "okay" to wonder about things? Perhaps...but, that is where he lost.




Yes, another PC area that whites cant talk about. Even though it was factually true, he wasnt allowed to talk about it.



Which one of Clive Bundy's statements do you mean is factually true?



The want and desire to stay together as a family unit was stronger during slavery than it is today.

There is the entire exchange right there for you to reconsider.

Are you still sure you want to support those statements?

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 05:48 PM
That is very twisted logic to think that any group would be better off under slavery.Thats twisting the narrative. I agree, its a poor time in history to reference when the black family was a more desired unit in comparrison to today.


I'm sure any family would have a strong desire to remain together, when living under the fear that a son or daughter could be sold away, to never be seen again.True. I agree. But it was also more desired back in the 60's as well.


How in the hell can you call a preposterous statement like that as being factual, in the first place?Because today only 30% or so babies born in the black community have 2 parent households maybe? That is of course the ones that make it to be born and not killed through abortion.


How would one go about measuring an entire group's desire? Again, I agree. Especially back then. Doubt there was a gallup poll of the slaves asking if they wanted to be a cohessive family unit.


It is obviously an opinion, and a very misguided one, and an insulting one.Not sure how its insulting. Insulting to todays standards or to those who were slaves?


If you are wondering why you have been called a racist, that should be a big clue for you right there.Did I say that? And how is it racist? Since the two major groups of slaves were Irish and Africans, both suffering about the same treatment as being ripped from their families, but only one is actually group of people that typically forms a two parent household, I would say it can be a well formed opinion. What if I was Asian and I made this observation, would you still call me racist when neither of them are of my bloodline?

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 05:54 PM
Yeah...remember the hell the Dixie Chicks caught for comments about Bush?

Ok. I'll buy that. Seems to me when people gain power, they want to be Authoritarian.Senators were usually forced to go to washington in the beginning. Washington, I think took the presidency begrudgingly.


What do they call them?

This whole internal struggle for the GOP is kind of fascinating to me. I do think it will result in another Democratic President in 2016 though.Ignorant, young. Menace. Harnful

And no, I dont think it will result in Hillary being elected either.


I don't know about taboo subjects. Usually when we here the term bandied about it's because of something like the diversity 5K run. People who do NOT want to see/hear/think about people being different say recognizing differences is Politically Correct BS.
I posted the link to wiki where the first references to PC is in making protected class's problems taboo for the "oppressors" to speak on.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 05:56 PM
That is very twisted logic to think that any group would be better off under slavery.

I'm sure any family would have a strong desire to remain together, when living under the fear that a son or daughter could be sold away, to never be seen again.

How in the hell can you call a preposterous statement like that as being factual, in the first place?

How would one go about measuring an entire group's desire?

It is obviously an opinion, and a very misguided one, and an insulting one.

If you are wondering why you have been called a racist, that should be a big clue for you right there.

Big elephant in the room... the decline of the "traditional" family unit isn't limited to just blacks. It's been on the decline for ALL Americans since the 1960's.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 06:01 PM
There is the entire exchange right there for you to reconsider.

Are you still sure you want to support those statements?

Would have been good to post this one before the last one or in line with the other. But if you dont think there has ever been a desire in the black population to be a family unit of 2 parent households, thats fine. I guess it wasnt really all that much a worry to the dad if his kids were sold to another slaver then. I guess the preception that all humans have the same basic desires for family have been wrong and you have shown me the light. I will never question again why there are so many black single mothers in poverty again. I mean, being a under educated single parent is the quickest way to poverty and hardest situations to dig yourself out of today, but you cleared it up for me, that is their culture.

But please, explain it to me if I am wrong in gathering your adversion to the thought that slaves want to be more of a family than what is wittnessed today.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 06:11 PM
Would have been good to post this one before the last one or in line with the other. But if you dont think there has ever been a desire in the black population to be a family unit of 2 parent households, thats fine. I guess it wasnt really all that much a worry to the dad if his kids were sold to another slaver then. I guess the preception that all humans have the same basic desires for family have been wrong and you have shown me the light. I will never question again why there are so many black single mothers in poverty again. I mean, being a under educated single parent is the quickest way to poverty and hardest situations to dig yourself out of today, but you cleared it up for me, that is their culture.

But please, explain it to me if I am wrong in gathering your adversion to the thought that slaves want to be more of a family than what is wittnessed today.

Rusty was right.

This is the point where I throw my hands in the air and say, "fuck it."

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 06:15 PM
There is the entire exchange right there for you to reconsider.

Are you still sure you want to support those statements?

Would have been good to post this one before the last one or in line with the other. But if you dont think there has ever been a desire in the black population to be a family unit of 2 parent households, thats fine. I guess it wasnt really all that much a worry to the dad if his kids were sold to another slaver then. I guess the preception that all humans have the same basic desires for family have been wrong and you have shown me the light. I will never question again why there are so many black single mothers in poverty again. I mean, being a under educated single parent is the quickest way to poverty and hardest situations to dig yourself out of today, but you cleared it up for me, that is their culture.

But please, explain it to me if I am wrong in gathering your adversion to the thought that slaves want to be more of a family than what is wittnessed today.

hustonj
06-18-2014, 06:18 PM
Big elephant in the room... the decline of the "traditional" family unit isn't limited to just blacks. It's been on the decline for ALL Americans since the 1960's.

I thought it went further back than that.

The "tradtional" family was a multi-generational extended family until after WWII, wasn't it?

Then we stopped wanting to take care of both our seniors and our young adults, choosing to live in a "nuclear family." Since then, the concept of a family has continued to deteriorate for most of our population, until today where it seems people accept the idea that no adult has to live with anybody they don't want to, without regard for moral obligation or community perception. Children are stil forced to live with a parent or guardian, but parents and guardians are finding ways to pass the buck on even this responsibility.

My daughter recently lost a preganacy (probably for the best given where she is in her life right now), but I was excited about the opportunity we almost had to get a photo of 5 generations of the family together at one time. How much of America today thinks of great-grandparents as even being part of their family anymore, let alone great-great-grandparents?

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 06:41 PM
Big elephant in the room... the decline of the "traditional" family unit isn't limited to just blacks. It's been on the decline for ALL Americans since the 1960's.

I agree. And actually doing a bit more research that seems to be legit, I really want to reset my previous stances and posts. Its not a simple answer, but Rusty is absolutely right about the rapid increase in single parent house holds since the 60's for all races.

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 06:50 PM
I agree. And actually doing a bit more research that seems to be legit, I really want to reset my previous stances and posts. Its not a simple answer, but Rusty is absolutely right about the rapid increase in single parent house holds since the 60's for all races.

Just to be clear though, being a single parent myself, I know how hard it is to make ends meet even with my stable job. But I can't and wont stay in forever and will need my BS by the time I get out. To jugle both kids, expenses, school, and work is a lot on my plate. The question that I keep asking myself though is why anyone would start a family so young by themselves? I didnt tempt fate when I was in high school becuase I knew it would be hard to raise a kid with so little income. Is it not common knowledge that sex can lead to pregnancy? Is it not common knowledge that 2 parents are better than one? Is it not common knowledge that with 2 parents, one parent can focus on work and promotions a lot easier than if they did it on their own?

Rainmaker
06-18-2014, 06:52 PM
Rusty was right.

This is the point where I throw my hands in the air and say, "fuck it."

That's Gay.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 06:56 PM
Just to be clear though, being a single parent myself, I know how hard it is to make ends meet even with my stable job. But I can't and wont stay in forever and will need my BS by the time I get out. To jugle both kids, expenses, school, and work is a lot on my plate.

Why do you need a BS? You would probably be better off as a slave...

WILDJOKER5
06-18-2014, 07:03 PM
So, back to PC as being "good"...

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 08:21 PM
Intersting history lessons for the day.

BTW, the bold is another PC narrative. Irish were slaves, not indentured servants. Just because some gained freedom doesnt mean they could all do the same. That would be like saying "Freddrick Douglas gained freedom of his contract, Africans were endentured servants." To suggest whites were slaves, and even recieved worse treatment takes the power away from race profiteers of the left. So discussion of this part of the slave trade market is leftout of the history books and never mentioned when someone says "The founders were racist because they considered Blacks 3/5ths a person".

Where are your sources for this?

Are you just making this up on your own or what?

Here you will find an accurate description of what indentured servitude was, it wasn't an easy and many died during their 5 year contracts, but they were clearly not slaves.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp

Are you claiming that the PC left went back in time and forged all those records, contracts, land grants, letters, and literature from the 1600s that deal with indentured servants.


WTF?

You are just being outlandish and patently false with what you are claiming.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 08:32 PM
A story today about a Tranny being told to remove makeup at the DMV for a picture. Baaaaaaad DMV. I had to take my glasses off and that was traumatic enough.

You want an example of PC being bad? If people are allowed to get DMV photos taken while completely unrecognizable then we've found a great example of PC gone wrong.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 08:54 PM
A story today about a Tranny being told to remove makeup at the DMV for a picture. Baaaaaaad DMV. I had to take my glasses off and that was traumatic enough.

You want an example of PC being bad? If people are allowed to get DMV photos taken while completely unrecognizable then we've found a great example of PC gone wrong.

I'm not sure what makes sense in that case. If the transgendered person normally wears makeup, then having her remove it would make her harder to recognize during a traffic stop.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 08:57 PM
I'm not sure what makes sense in that case. If the transgendered person normally wears makeup, then having her remove it would make her harder to recognize during a traffic stop.

Basically they are saying that it's no different then being in costume...wigs...make-up...fake lashes, etc. Kind of like a clown.

I think the issue is that it's an easily change appearance. The easiest way is to be able to identify you when there is no makeup on. You can't really verify that someone is who they say they are if their appearance is altered.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 08:58 PM
Another PC gone too far...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/opinion/butler-obama-girls/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

If this program was specifically for women it wouldn't be an issue. But because it's for men, there seems to be a problem.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 09:11 PM
Another PC gone too far...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/opinion/butler-obama-girls/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

If this program was specifically for women it wouldn't be an issue. But because it's for men, there seems to be a problem.

It is just the opinion of a professor at Georgetown.

Editor's note: Paul Butler is a law professor at Georgetown University. A former federal prosecutor, he is the author of "Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Do people have to have their opinions vetted by some imaginary anti-PC committee?

The anti-PC crowd is out of control! They are trying to take over everything!

Sound familiar?

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 09:14 PM
It is just the opinion of a professor at Georgetown.

Editor's note: Paul Butler is a law professor at Georgetown University. A former federal prosecutor, he is the author of "Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Do people have to have their opinions vetted by some imaginary anti-PC committee?

The anti-PC crowd is out of control! They are trying to take over everything!

Sound familiar?

The article is his opinion. However, the comments of the women complaining (Anita Hill, Rosie Perez, et al.) are not his opinions. Those are women complaining that the program is just for men. That is an example of PC being PC just for the sake of PC.

edit: Just to clarify, I wasn't saying he was being too PC. I'm talking about everyone he mentions who are also complaining about it.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 09:20 PM
The article is his opinion. However, the comments of the women complaining (Anita Hill, Rosie Perez, et al.) are not his opinions. Those are women complaining that the program is just for men. That is an example of PC being PC just for the sake of PC.

edit: Just to clarify, I wasn't saying he was being too PC. I'm talking about everyone he mentions who are also complaining about it.

So, they are individuals that share his opinion.

What's the difference?

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 09:26 PM
So, they are individuals that share his opinion.

What's the difference?

There is no difference. The point is that it's an example of PC not being good. It's a program that is helping people and others are complaining that it's not inclusive enough. "It's not fair" is a big issue with the PC crowd. Why can't they just be happy that there is a program to help?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 09:36 PM
There is no difference. The point is that it's an example of PC not being good. It's a program that is helping people and others are complaining that it's not inclusive enough. "It's not fair" is a big issue with the PC crowd. Why can't they just be happy that there is a program to help?

How is that PC?

Who gets to slap the label of too PC on that article or anything else?

It sounds like a hollow accusation to me.

Just as WJ5 contends that the political left uses PC as rhetoric, one can just as easily claim that the political right uses it as rhetoric.

What's the difference?

That is why I framed political correctness as merely being polite and respectful in the OP.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 09:53 PM
How is that PC?

Who gets to slap the label of too PC on that article or anything else?

It sounds like a hollow accusation to me.

Just as WJ5 contends that the political left uses PC as rhetoric, one can just as easily claim that the political right uses it as rhetoric.

What's the difference?

That is why I framed political correctness as merely being polite and respectful in the OP.

Political correctness is used as rhetoric by all sides, no doubt.

You framed political correctness to what it should be. I'm framing it as what it is. What is has done is make people feel that if they aren't included then they are being excluded.

I've heard the argument many, many times that there should be a white history month. I hope it never happens. The institution of a white history month based on the complaints of whites not having a month of our own would be down to nothing but political correctness.

garhkal
06-18-2014, 11:34 PM
A story today about a Tranny being told to remove makeup at the DMV for a picture. Baaaaaaad DMV. I had to take my glasses off and that was traumatic enough.

You want an example of PC being bad? If people are allowed to get DMV photos taken while completely unrecognizable then we've found a great example of PC gone wrong.

To me any thing impeding the face for an official photo should be removed, glasses are ok imo. Make up? Depends on how much.
A full hijab like item? IMO heck no.


Another PC gone too far...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/opinion/butler-obama-girls/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

If this program was specifically for women it wouldn't be an issue. But because it's for men, there seems to be a problem.

Agreed. Only for men, bad. Only for women, ok.

WILDJOKER5
06-19-2014, 06:56 PM
Where are your sources for this?

Are you just making this up on your own or what?

Here you will find an accurate description of what indentured servitude was, it wasn't an easy and many died during their 5 year contracts, but they were clearly not slaves.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp

Are you claiming that the PC left went back in time and forged all those records, contracts, land grants, letters, and literature from the 1600s that deal with indentured servants.


WTF?

You are just being outlandish and patently false with what you are claiming.From your own link. I was talking about Irish, you give me a link about English servants.


This might include land, money, a gun, clothes or food. On the surface it seemed like a terrific way for the luckless English poor to make their way to prosperity in a new land


Sure, King James II just collected over half the population of the Irish in a decade and sent them to the colonies because they volunteered. Eh, WRONG.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

Absinthe Anecdote
06-19-2014, 07:26 PM
From your own link. I was talking about Irish, you give me a link about English servants.




Sure, King James II just collected over half the population of the Irish in a decade and sent them to the colonies because they volunteered. Eh, WRONG.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

You readily accept that guy's book?

I'll look into this a little more, but I'm very suspicious of what pops up when you google search the author and title of that book.

I'm not a bit surprised that Stormfront has it on their reading list though.

BTW,

I was talking about Scots(Not Irish) who settled in Northern Ireland, and then came to the New World.

Once in the colonies, they were often referred to as Scots-Irish, which isn't an accurate reference to a mixed ethnic group, but that is what they became known as.

You brought up Irish slaves on your own, not me.

WILDJOKER5
06-19-2014, 07:37 PM
You readily accept that guy's book?

I'll look into this a little more, but I'm very suspicious of what pops up when you google search the author and title of that book.

I'm not a bit surprised that Stormfront has it on their reading list though.

BTW,

I was talking about Scots(Not Irish) who settled in Northern Ireland, and then came to the New World.

Once in the colonies, they were often referred to as Scots-Irish, which isn't an accurate reference to a mixed ethnic group, but that is what they became known as.

You brought up Irish slaves on your own, not me.Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarifications.

BENDER56
06-19-2014, 08:06 PM
To me any thing impeding the face for an official photo should be removed, glasses are ok imo. Make up? Depends on how much.
A full hijab like item? IMO heck no.

Old news: http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/motor-vehicles-denies-license-to-muslim-woman-1.1081301

WILDJOKER5
06-19-2014, 08:18 PM
Can this PC be considered "good"? The American flag is taken down because it threatens the Muslim community. Isnt that offensive to the men and women who have died fighting for the nation that flag represents? When you get to the point where you dont want to offend someone, you are definately going to offend someone. Dening someone the right to speak their mind or stop them from offending someone else is in itself offensive.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/unreal-tx-man-told-to-take-down-us-flag-from-balcony-its-a-threat-to-muslim-community-video/

Rainmaker
06-19-2014, 08:39 PM
Political correctness is used as rhetoric by all sides, no doubt.

You framed political correctness to what it should be. I'm framing it as what it is. What is has done is make people feel that if they aren't included then they are being excluded.

I've heard the argument many, many times that there should be a white history month. I hope it never happens. The institution of a white history month based on the complaints of whites not having a month of our own would be down to nothing but political correctness.

We have our own day. April 15th, when we celebrate paying our taxes to support .gov that's pushing all this stupid shit to the detriment of the country.

garhkal
06-19-2014, 10:20 PM
Old news: http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/motor-vehicles-denies-license-to-muslim-woman-1.1081301

I know it was reported on in relation to that muslim woman. Which was my point. If they could get her to take her hijab off, why would it have been seen as wrong to ask a Transvestite to remove their make up (or what ever) to get a proper facial picture?


Can this PC be considered "good"? The American flag is taken down because it threatens the Muslim community. Isnt that offensive to the men and women who have died fighting for the nation that flag represents? When you get to the point where you dont want to offend someone, you are definately going to offend someone. Dening someone the right to speak their mind or stop them from offending someone else is in itself offensive.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/unreal-tx-man-told-to-take-down-us-flag-from-balcony-its-a-threat-to-muslim-community-video/

That sounds almost as bad as people in England being asked to remove "Piggy banks" from window sills, just so they don't offend any Muslims in the community.

Measure Man
06-19-2014, 11:22 PM
Can this PC be considered "good"? The American flag is taken down because it threatens the Muslim community. Isnt that offensive to the men and women who have died fighting for the nation that flag represents? When you get to the point where you dont want to offend someone, you are definately going to offend someone. Dening someone the right to speak their mind or stop them from offending someone else is in itself offensive.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/unreal-tx-man-told-to-take-down-us-flag-from-balcony-its-a-threat-to-muslim-community-video/

IF what the man says is true (a big IF)...then I don't think you'll find too many people, left, right, conservative, liberal, authoritarian, libertarian, or whatever that would support that.

I have my doubts that he was really told that...this flag thing is getting to be kind of like the "he wrote a slur on my receipt"...or "patron wrote no tip because of...." thing. The truth is rarely as reported in the first "outrage generating" article.

Statement from the landlord:
"While the Lodge on El Dorado admires our resident's patriotism, we must enforce our property rules and guidelines. Such guidelines maintain the aesthetics of our apartment community and provide for the safety of all residents. The apartment community already proudly displays our country's flag in a safe and appropriate manner at the entrances to our community."

So, m guess is like all those HOA flag disputes...they have some general rules against flying banners and such from your balcony, so this guy throws up a giant US Flag, just to raise a stink.

Meh...nothing PC about it.

Seems to be a popular way to generate outrage these days...flagrantly violate community rules, but do it with an American symbol so when you're told to remove it, you can claim anti-Americanism. Even better if the resident/tenant is a veteran.

Even if he was told that, it was one dinglefutz working the desk that couldn't think up a reason why they had a policy that banned large flags from balconies, when the guy questioned why...guarantee you this is not the real reason, and not the complexes policy to specifically ban US flags for this reason.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 01:33 AM
What about the Redskins? 90% of all native Americans are fine with the name. The name they called themselves. The name that was given to a team to honor the first coach. Mascot names are supposed to stike (relative) fear into their opponents. The name of historically native American High School and colleges.

And if this name, the Redskins, which has a long history of admiration is offensive, why is the suggested name "Red Tails" ok? That was the glaring mark of segregation in the military. It painted a target on the planes of minority pilots. Just because it is a term of endearment now, then wouldn't the "N-word" be a justifiable name for a mascot since that is a term of endearment around the black community?

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 01:36 AM
IF what the man says is true (a big IF)...then I don't think you'll find too many people, left, right, conservative, liberal, authoritarian, libertarian, or whatever that would support that.

I have my doubts that he was really told that...this flag thing is getting to be kind of like the "he wrote a slur on my receipt"...or "patron wrote no tip because of...." thing. The truth is rarely as reported in the first "outrage generating" article.

Statement from the landlord:
"While the Lodge on El Dorado admires our resident's patriotism, we must enforce our property rules and guidelines. Such guidelines maintain the aesthetics of our apartment community and provide for the safety of all residents. The apartment community already proudly displays our country's flag in a safe and appropriate manner at the entrances to our community."

So, m guess is like all those HOA flag disputes...they have some general rules against flying banners and such from your balcony, so this guy throws up a giant US Flag, just to raise a stink.

Meh...nothing PC about it.

Seems to be a popular way to generate outrage these days...flagrantly violate community rules, but do it with an American symbol so when you're told to remove it, you can claim anti-Americanism. Even better if the resident/tenant is a veteran.

Even if he was told that, it was one dinglefutz working the desk that couldn't think up a reason why they had a policy that banned large flags from balconies, when the guy questioned why...guarantee you this is not the real reason, and not the complexes policy to specifically ban US flags for this reason.

Ok, local news report.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/19/video-man-told-to-remove-american-flag-because-its-a-threat-to-muslims/

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 05:25 AM
Ok, local news report.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/19/video-man-told-to-remove-american-flag-because-its-a-threat-to-muslims/

Local news report pretty much the same...

It's not "Man was told flag was a threat to Muslims"

It IS "Man says he was told flag was threat to Muslims"

big difference.



KHOU indicates that there were numerous other patriotic symbols that could been seen on balconies throughout the property.

Outrage is misquided.

garhkal
06-20-2014, 06:30 AM
What about the Redskins? 90% of all native Americans are fine with the name. The name they called themselves. The name that was given to a team to honor the first coach. Mascot names are supposed to stike (relative) fear into their opponents. The name of historically native American High School and colleges.

And if this name, the Redskins, which has a long history of admiration is offensive, why is the suggested name "Red Tails" ok? That was the glaring mark of segregation in the military. It painted a target on the planes of minority pilots. Just because it is a term of endearment now, then wouldn't the "N-word" be a justifiable name for a mascot since that is a term of endearment around the black community?

Or the Atlanta Braves, OR Kansas city chiefs. Or any of the other teams (professional, college or high school) that use a moniker related to native Americans..

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 01:09 PM
Or the Atlanta Braves, OR Kansas city chiefs. Or any of the other teams (professional, college or high school) that use a moniker related to native Americans..

There was a high school team trying to come up with a new mascot for their new high school. The students chose Cougar. That was shot down cause it could offend mid 30 yo women.

socal1200r
06-20-2014, 01:30 PM
I have a suggestion to replace the Washington Redskins team name...how about the Beltway Bandits?!

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 03:15 PM
I have a suggestion to replace the Washington Redskins team name...how about the Beltway Bandits?!

I saw one today, the Washington TEA Partiers. Yellow Helmet and the Coiled snake. They do have the most congruent cross section of Americans associated with them. Their demographics match very closely with America as a whole.

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 03:17 PM
I saw one today, the Washington TEA Partiers. Yellow Helmet and the Coiled snake. They do have the most congruent cross section of Americans associated with them. Their demographics match very closely with America as a whole.

I saw that...helmet was very cool...I always loved the Gadsden Flag...this would have been a great idea before Tea Party was overtaken and polluted by Christian Conservatives.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 05:13 PM
I saw that...helmet was very cool...I always loved the Gadsden Flag...this would have been a great idea before Tea Party was overtaken and polluted by Christian Conservatives.

Yeah...except the most recent poll shows that they have the same demographics as American society. Nasty Christians being all inclusive and stuff. They need to be more individually group minded and exclusive.
http://radioviceonline.com/gallup-tea-party-demographics-represent-mainstream-america/

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 05:32 PM
Yeah...except the most recent poll shows that they have the same demographics as American society.

Who, the Tea Party? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Nasty Christians being all inclusive and stuff. They need to be more individually group minded and exclusive.
http://radioviceonline.com/gallup-tea-party-demographics-represent-mainstream-america/

That's the problem... they're TOO inclusive, especially toward those who do NOT want to be included. Remember that nutcase from a few months back who claimed to have verbal exchanges with God, who said that atheists are really believers who want the ability to sin without inhibitions?

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 05:37 PM
Who, the Tea Party? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Yes, sadly your idea that they discriminate or full of white old guys is a bust. But the demographics are a cross sectiong with the American people.

[qutoe]That's the problem... they're TOO inclusive, especially toward those who do NOT want to be included. Remember that nutcase from a few months back who claimed to have verbal exchanges with God, who said that atheists are really believers who want the ability to sin without inhibitions?[/QUOTE]
No, I was not aware of that one. But remember those two of the occupy movement that shot and killed two cops in Vegas? Seems kind of silly to bash an entire group based on one nut job supporter who may not be supported by the group.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 05:44 PM
Yes, sadly your idea that they discriminate or full of white old guys is a bust. But the demographics are a cross sectiong with the American people.

Eh, no it's not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 06:01 PM
Political correctness is used as rhetoric by all sides, no doubt.

You framed political correctness to what it should be. I'm framing it as what it is. What is has done is make people feel that if they aren't included then they are being excluded.

I've heard the argument many, many times that there should be a white history month. I hope it never happens. The institution of a white history month based on the complaints of whites not having a month of our own would be down to nothing but political correctness.

I framed political correctness as being merely polite and respectful, because that is how the vast majority of us live our lives.

Vocal minorities from the left and the right have turned political correctness into a weapon that they use in their silly fight to gain an upper hand in an irrelevant culture war.

Just as leftists PC denizens use it as a tool for manipulation, right-wingers tout their anti-PC message even louder in an effort to control thought.

The truth of the matter is, most everyone is polite and respectful on a personal level.

I'm a big fan of Penn & Teller, and I have yet to find an episode of their show, Bullshit, that I don't agree with.

Here are a couple of episodes of, Bullshit, that I think are relevant to this thread.

Don't wet your pants, WJ5, I didn't just jump over to your side, because I think you have swallowed an even greater amount of Bullshit from right-wing extremists.

These are a little long, but entirely worth the time, enjoy!


http://youtu.be/WNQ9JoVm4oI


http://youtu.be/-KKI27OFBOY

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 06:10 PM
Yeah...except the most recent poll shows that they have the same demographics as American society.

What does that have to do with whether or not they are Christian Conservatives?


Nasty Christians being all inclusive and stuff. They need to be more individually group minded and exclusive.
http://radioviceonline.com/gallup-tea-party-demographics-represent-mainstream-america/

Not sure the point you are trying to make.

I didn't say they were exclusive...I said they (or their orginal message) has been corrupted and polluted by the Christian Conservatives...i.e. Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum...

As you may remember or not, I, like you, am a big fan of Ron Paul's...in the last election even he was booed at Tea Party debates.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 06:24 PM
Eh, no it's not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

LOL, 6% other? What, hispanic, India, middle eastern? Kind of hard for me to take a NYT survey seriously, especially when they lead off with "thier angry". But, another PC ruling is not to mention the stereo type of "the angry black man". Who on the left wasnt "angry" at GWB? Who in code pink or the NAACP or NBP arent "angry"? Come on man. I give you Gallop and you give me a far left leaning publication of NYT?

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 06:32 PM
I framed political correctness as being merely polite and respectful, because that is how the vast majority of us live our lives.

Vocal minorities from the left and the right have turned political correctness into a weapon that they use in their silly fight to gain an upper hand in an irrelevant culture war.

Just as leftists PC denizens use it as a tool for manipulation, right-wingers tout their anti-PC message even louder in an effort to control thought.LOL, "even louder in an effort to control thought"? Wow, thats bold when you are touting something created by the extreme left (socialist) for the sole purpose of controling thought. Rainmaker made this point pages ago with the origions of PC. But you say its those who are anti-PC that control thought? That is so oxymoronic. Free speech isnt controlling thought. Free speech is anti-PC. PC is designed to control thought.


The truth of the matter is, most everyone is polite and respectful on a personal level.Still not the same as PC.


I'm a big fan of Penn & Teller, and I have yet to find an episode of their show, Bullshit, that I don't agree with.

Here are a couple of episodes of, Bullshit, that I think are relevant to this thread.

Don't wet your pants, WJ5, I didn't just jump over to your side, because I think you have swallowed an even greater amount of Bullshit from right-wing extremists.

These are a little long, but entirely worth the time, enjoy!


They made more than 2 seasons? I loved the first season, they had some truly inspiring rants, like the one about bottled water. Season 2 they started becomeing a little too opionated to their own beliefs and I lost interest.

But they are great libertarians none the less.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 06:32 PM
LOL, 6% other? What, hispanic, India, middle eastern? Kind of hard for me to take a NYT survey seriously, especially when they lead off with "thier angry". But, another PC ruling is not to mention the stereo type of "the angry black man". Who on the left wasnt "angry" at GWB? Who in code pink or the NAACP or NBP arent "angry"? Come on man. I give you Gallop and you give me a far left leaning publication of NYT?

Gallop's survey methods are not without criticism, and you know it.

You know as well as I do, that if we were to take a snapshot of any Tea Party rally, it would definitely reflect the link I provided far more than it would represent yours.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 06:43 PM
What does that have to do with whether or not they are Christian Conservatives?Dont usually see 12% blacks as the basis for something you would call "Christian Conservative". Its really a slam against the group based on term with negative conotations because of misrepresentations the left wing media has given to the group.


Not sure the point you are trying to make.

I didn't say they were exclusive...I said they (or their orginal message) has been corrupted and polluted by the Christian Conservatives...i.e. Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum...

As you may remember or not, I, like you, am a big fan of Ron Paul's...in the last election even he was booed at Tea Party debates.Typically the term "Christian conservative" is the code word for "racist" and "white people". You pick out Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum, but leave out those who run the actual TEA parties in the areas. Sarah Palin is just a speaker, she is not the leader. I dont even think Rick was endorsed by the TEA party. Michelle had the congressional caucus, but she isnt in charge of that anymore since she is retiring. People like Allen West, Alfonzo Racheal, and many other black conservatives are speakers and leaders of TEA parties.

Actually, Christian conservatives like those three are pretty much distancing themselves from the TEA party because it is losing popularity. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Scott Walker are the ones that are still in the political scene being heavily endorsed by the TEA party. And the New guy for Cantor, Brat, is a Libertarian.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 06:45 PM
Gallop's survey methods are not without criticism, and you know it.

You know as well as I do, that if we were to take a snapshot of any Tea Party rally, it would definitely reflect the link I provided far more than it would represent yours.

Depends on who took the picture. And yes, Gallop can be scetchy. But are they slammed as far right wing polling center?

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 06:48 PM
PC example.

Its racist to not vote for Obama because he is black.

Its NOT racist to vote for Obama because he is black.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 06:53 PM
Dont usually see 12% blacks as the basis for something you would call "Christian Conservative". Its really a slam against the group based on term with negative conotations because of misrepresentations the left wing media has given to the group.

Bullshit. "Christian conservatives" have been hanging themselves with their own ropes since the 1970's. The "left wing" doesn't have to say a thing. All they have to do is let the "Christian conservatives" keep doing the talking.

And the more conscious conservatives have actually taken notice of this in recent years.


Depends on who took the picture. And yes, Gallop can be scetchy. But are they slammed as far right wing polling center?

Who cares? Conservatives will slam anything that's not Fox News.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 06:56 PM
PC example.

Its racist to not vote for Obama because he is black.

Its NOT racist to vote for Obama because he is black.

No; what IS racist is to spout bullshit like this.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 07:02 PM
Bullshit. "Christian conservatives" have been hanging themselves with their own ropes since the 1970's. The "left wing" doesn't have to say a thing. All they have to do is let the "Christian conservatives" keep doing the talking.

And the more conscious conservatives have actually taken notice of this in recent years.And what examples do you have of this? I would have to say you bring up the abortion issue? When a Christian says "abortion kills a life", the left comes back and says "You are just anti-women". But I would love some honest examples of how they "hung" themselves that was not twisted by left wing media.


Who cares? Conservatives will slam anything that's not Fox News.
True, but are you going to deny that NYT is a left wing media outlet with major bias against the right?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 07:08 PM
LOL, "even louder in an effort to control thought"? Wow, thats bold when you are touting something created by the extreme left (socialist) for the sole purpose of controling thought. Rainmaker made this point pages ago with the origions of PC. But you say its those who are anti-PC that control thought? That is so oxymoronic. Free speech isnt controlling thought. Free speech is anti-PC. PC is designed to control thought.

Still not the same as PC.



They made more than 2 seasons? I loved the first season, they had some truly inspiring rants, like the one about bottled water. Season 2 they started becomeing a little too opionated to their own beliefs and I lost interest.

But they are great libertarians none the less.

You aren't half the free thinker, you pretend to be.

You'd gladly support a return of DADT, wouldn't you?

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 07:09 PM
And what examples do you have of this? I would have to say you bring up the abortion issue? When a Christian says "abortion kills a life", the left comes back and says "You are just anti-women". But I would love some honest examples of how they "hung" themselves that was not twisted by left wing media.

My quote is a perfect example.


True, but are you going to deny that NYT is a left wing media outlet with major bias against the right?

Yes. Personally, whenever a conservative says "left wing media," I really have zero interest in anything they have to say.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 07:26 PM
No; what IS racist is to spout bullshit like this.

How was it racist? And how was it BS?

Lets look at the numbers if it isnt anti-PC shall we?
86% blacks still support Obama in a positive approval rating. Yet the rest of America has him at 45% approval rating according the FNC. Gallup has him at 84%, 48%, and 33% among blacks, hispanics and whites respectively.

•When Obama entered office on January 20, 2009, U.S. unemployment stood at 7.8 percent. By April 2014, that Bureau of Labor Statistics figure had fallen to 6.3 percent — a modest improvement. Among blacks overall, joblessness dropped, though less significantly — from 12.7 to 11.6 percent. But for blacks aged 16 to 19, unemployment grew from 35.3 to 36.8 percent.

•Obama’s somewhat more sanguine unemployment numbers, such as they are, seem less about job growth and more about people simply abandoning the workforce — whereupon they conveniently exit the unemployment rate. The more revealing labor force participation rate thus fell from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.8 percent last month, a portrait of disengagement last witnessed in March 1978. For black adults, that number slipped from 63.2 to 60.9 percent. While 29.6 percent of blacks aged 16 to 19 were working when Obama took power, only 27.9 percent were employed last month.

And so on. Black community has been set back in the socio-economic realm, at the same rate, sometimes higher than the rest of America in every measurable table. But the poll numbers from blacks are still there.

Your response was either a troll, or shining example of PC run amok.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/stacey-dash-regrets-voting-obama-because-he-was-black_n_4030208.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Obama-Blacks-voter-approval/2014/05/15/id/571517/
http://www.blackradionetwork.com/obama_black_approval_hits_new_low
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/12/samuel-l-jackson-obama-vote-black_n_1271797.html

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 07:29 PM
You aren't half the free thinker, you pretend to be.

You'd gladly support a return of DADT, wouldn't you?

Nope. I have no problem with "Bob bringing Bill to the shop function", Or "Mary and Jane". But in a world of 7 Billion people, and a country of 330Million, its pretty hard to be unique.

WILDJOKER5
06-20-2014, 07:32 PM
My quote is a perfect example.That wasnt an example, that was an accusation.


Yes. Personally, whenever a conservative says "left wing media," I really have zero interest in anything they have to say.
So ignoring you when you say right wing media is Ok? I can write off your arguements then? If you are wanting to be ignorant of the sources you post, then so be it. Guess you just have to post anything that follows your belief and ignore FNC posts you dont agree with.

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 08:57 PM
Dont usually see 12% blacks as the basis for something you would call "Christian Conservative".

I'm still not making the connection between Christian Conservative and race.


Its really a slam against the group based on term with negative conotations because of misrepresentations the left wing media has given to the group.

I think those who the label applies would call themselves the same...I don't think it has negative connotations, necessarily. I dislike their politics, so in that sense when someone would say they are a Christian Conservative, it is negative to me, just like some might say "Republican" or "Democrat" is negative if they don't like those politically. I would tend to think I'll probably not like their politics, as I disagree with a lot of what they typically stand for. Currently, gay rights seems to be a major issue for them.


Typically the term "Christian conservative" is the code word for "racist" and "white people".

I don't think so. This doesn't even make sense.

When I say the term Christian Conservative, I'm referring to those people who seem to want to legislate a lot of "their values"...just as outlawing abortion, Go back to DADT, or better yet an outright ban on homosexuals in the Armed Forces, banning gay marriage perhaps even by Contitutional amendment, putting the 10 commandments in courthouses, teaching creationism in science class, allowing businesses to refuse service to gays,....things like that. Basically they tend to want a small government, excpet where enlarging govt. can help them impose their morality on others.


You pick out Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum, but leave out those who run the actual TEA parties in the areas. Sarah Palin is just a speaker, she is not the leader. I dont even think Rick was endorsed by the TEA party. Michelle had the congressional caucus, but she isnt in charge of that anymore since she is retiring. People like Allen West, Alfonzo Racheal, and many other black conservatives are speakers and leaders of TEA parties.

I do not care for Allen West. He seems to spend most of his time distorting the truth in order to stoke the fire of anti-Obama outrage.

I'm not familiar with that other guy.


Actually, Christian conservatives like those three are pretty much distancing themselves from the TEA party because it is losing popularity.

That's good to know. Better if the Tea party distances itself from them.


Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Scott Walker are the ones that are still in the political scene being heavily endorsed by the TEA party. And the New guy for Cantor, Brat, is a Libertarian.

Rand Paul seems to be the most reasonable at times. I don't have much time for Ted Cruz.

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 09:02 PM
Typically the term "Christian conservative" is the code word for "racist" and "white people". People like Allen West, Alfonzo Racheal, and many other black conservatives are speakers and leaders of TEA parties.

From Alfonzo Rachel's website:

"AlfonZo Rachel is a Christian conservative social / political humorist. His work is distinguished by his grinning delivery and rapid fire rant style in his video commentaries called, ZoNation on PJTV.com. Check out his work with the play list below!"

garhkal
06-20-2014, 09:05 PM
There was a high school team trying to come up with a new mascot for their new high school. The students chose Cougar. That was shot down cause it could offend mid 30 yo women.

Are you being serious?

WILDJOKER5
06-21-2014, 06:25 PM
I do not care for Allen West. He seems to spend most of his time distorting the truth in order to stoke the fire of anti-Obama outrage.

I'm not familiar with that other guy.

He produced a documentary called "Run Away Slave".

WILDJOKER5
06-21-2014, 06:25 PM
Are you being serious?

Yep. I think we discussed on this forum.

WILDJOKER5
06-21-2014, 06:28 PM
From Alfonzo Rachel's website:

"AlfonZo Rachel is a Christian conservative social / political humorist. His work is distinguished by his grinning delivery and rapid fire rant style in his video commentaries called, ZoNation on PJTV.com. Check out his work with the play list below!"
Yes. I see your point that there are people on the right that will call themselves "Christian Conservative", but my point is, the left hears that term and thinks of Sarah, Michelle and Rick. Along with whole host of other white people.

garhkal
06-21-2014, 07:20 PM
Yep. I think we discussed on this forum.

So it was shutdown because it "Might offend" not cause it has. But yet the college that High school looks up to has used the Cougar name for umpteen years with no one taking offense.

WILDJOKER5
06-21-2014, 09:10 PM
So it was shutdown because it "Might offend" not cause it has. But yet the college that High school looks up to has used the Cougar name for umpteen years with no one taking offense.

It was back in 2012.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/cougar-mascot-vetoed-for-_n_1218779.html

garhkal
06-22-2014, 06:44 AM
I know that, but it still makes no sense. We have several college teams with cougars as their name, so why the heart ache when a HS wanted to name their team Cougars?

sandsjames
06-23-2014, 04:08 PM
I know that, but it still makes no sense. We have several college teams with cougars as their name, so why the heart ache when a HS wanted to name their team Cougars?

Who knows?...Maybe they figured it's OK for Cougars to go after people of legal age but since High School kids are not at the age of legal consent any involvement with a "cougar" would be illegal, hence banning the name. That's the only logic (though still highly illogical) that could even come close to explaining the stupidity.

sandsjames
06-23-2014, 04:16 PM
Here's an interesting article that I though covers many of the points we've been discussing on both sides of the argument.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/21/living/movement-dull/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

garhkal
06-23-2014, 08:33 PM
Who knows?...Maybe they figured it's OK for Cougars to go after people of legal age but since High School kids are not at the age of legal consent any involvement with a "cougar" would be illegal, hence banning the name. That's the only logic (though still highly illogical) that could even come close to explaining the stupidity.

That's some messed up logic then.

WILDJOKER5
07-01-2014, 06:20 PM
How about claiming calling the Asian Carp "Asian" is racist?

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/03/bill_banning_asian_carp_advances_asian_leaders_say _term_is_offensive.php

WILDJOKER5
07-01-2014, 06:22 PM
What about this on shutting down the conversation? Calling Will Cain a "true white guy" so that he cant speak on how words effect people?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/whoopi-goldberg-mocks-conservative-guest-host-spoken-like-a-true-white-guy/

sandsjames
07-01-2014, 06:47 PM
How about claiming calling the Asian Carp "Asian" is racist?

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/03/bill_banning_asian_carp_advances_asian_leaders_say _term_is_offensive.php

Can we also get rid of the "Bald" Eagle? It's NOT bald! Offensive to folically challenged people.

What about the "Lady" bug. There are also male ones. It seems to me that equating a female to a bug is pretty sexist.

garhkal
07-02-2014, 12:51 AM
Good think i had nothing in my mouth when i read that, otherwise you would be owing me a screen cleaner wipe.

BENDER56
07-05-2014, 03:14 PM
How about claiming calling the Asian Carp "Asian" is racist?

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/03/bill_banning_asian_carp_advances_asian_leaders_say _term_is_offensive.php

Huh. And here I thought "Oriental" was the offensive term and "Asian" was okay.

Maybe I should just stop referring to ethnicity altogether. But if I did that, how would other people know whether to pre-hate who I'm talking about?

WILDJOKER5
07-07-2014, 12:18 PM
Huh. And here I thought "Oriental" was the offensive term and "Asian" was okay.

Maybe I should just stop referring to ethnicity altogether. But if I did that, how would other people know whether to pre-hate who I'm talking about?

Maybe we should stop calling the whole contitnent of Asia "Asia" because it maybe offensive? Hell, Pelosi called us all "Americans" as she greeted the illegals flowing over the boarder.

socal1200r
07-07-2014, 03:00 PM
Maybe we should stop calling the whole contitnent of Asia "Asia" because it maybe offensive? Hell, Pelosi called us all "Americans" as she greeted the illegals flowing over the boarder.

Dude - based on your recent posts, you need a new grammar / spellchecker...

contitnent = continent
maybe = may be
boarder = border

WILDJOKER5
07-07-2014, 03:10 PM
Dude - based on your recent posts, you need a new grammar / spellchecker...

contitnent = continent
maybe = may be
boarder = border

Thanks, windows doesnt spell check internet post very well. Sorry if that distracts you from the content. lol

TJMAC77SP
07-07-2014, 05:08 PM
Dude - based on your recent posts, you need a new grammar / spellchecker...

contitnent = continent
maybe = may be
boarder = border

Actually his use of maybe was correct.

WILDJOKER5
07-07-2014, 05:29 PM
Here's one. Obama dipicted in front of an outhouse with the words "Obama's Presidential Library" is deemed "racist". I mean seriously? What is racial about it? Critizising Obama is anti-PC and so there for called Racist.

The woman makes the claim
"My daughter keeps asking me, 'Why?' and I don't have an answer for her," she said. "We made this place our home, but right now it doesn't feel like it. It's shameful."
Here is a great idea, if you cant answer, then maybe you have no claim to the point its racist. Perpetuating the race card is one of the worse things you can do for society and teaching your kids to be a victim sets them up for failure. There isnt a single thing that was racially stereotypical about this float.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/parade-float-targeting-obama-future-presidential-library-draws-criticism/?intcmp=latestnews

Measure Man
07-07-2014, 05:52 PM
Maybe we should stop calling the whole contitnent of Asia "Asia" because it maybe offensive? Hell, Pelosi called us all "Americans" as she greeted the illegals flowing over the boarder.


Dude - based on your recent posts, you need a new grammar / spellchecker...

contitnent = continent
maybe = may be
boarder = border

Geography could use a little work, too.

People from Central and South AMERICA are, well, Americans.

WILDJOKER5
07-07-2014, 06:22 PM
Geography could use a little work, too.

People from Central and South AMERICA are, well, Americans.

Come on, you know what I am talking about and her meaning on the use of the word. That same crap talk wouldnt work in any other country in this hemisphere.

Measure Man
07-07-2014, 06:29 PM
Come on, you know what I am talking about and her meaning on the use of the word.

I know what you think you mean...I also know that her meaning is not the same as the outrageous statement you think she made...here is the more of the quote:


“We are all Americans — north and south in this hemisphere,”

Which, seems pretty obvious that she is referring to other countries in the Americas. Of course, the conservative blogoshpere only mention the first few words...because they know their base will be up in arms thinking Pelosi granted them some kind of US citizenship...


That same crap talk wouldnt work in any other country in this hemisphere.

I've lived in Central America and they also call themselves Americans. When referring to us, they would generally say we are "Norte Americanos" to include Canadians.

WILDJOKER5
07-07-2014, 06:48 PM
I know what you think you mean...I also know that her meaning is not the same as the outrageous statement you think she made...here is the more of the quote:



Which, seems pretty obvious that she is referring to other countries in the Americas. Of course, the conservative blogoshpere only mention the first few words...because they know their base will be up in arms thinking Pelosi granted them some kind of US citizenship...



I've lived in Central America and they also call themselves Americans. When referring to us, they would generally say we are "Norte Americanos" to include Canadians.

Even with the second part, which was very much covered by the conservative blogsphere, her standing on the border and saying that while welcoming them accross illegally still means what she meant.

What you dont understand is that even though the may refer to us as "Americans", as I would them in the right context, would be like a Chinese politician claiming they would give all refuge to Indians or Tibetens if they started rusing over the border seaking free homes, healthcare, cell phones, food, and running water, just because they are all "Asians". Its actually quite treasonous what Pelosi said.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/pelosi-we-are-all-americans-now.php

Measure Man
07-07-2014, 06:59 PM
Even with the second part, which was very much covered by the conservative blogsphere, her standing on the border and saying that while welcoming them accross illegally still means what she meant.

I don't think she meant that they are all welcome to just come on in.


What you dont understand is that even though the may refer to us as "Americans", as I would them in the right context, would be like a Chinese politician claiming they would give all refuge to Indians or Tibetens if they started rusing over the border seaking free homes, healthcare, cell phones, food, and running water, just because they are all "Asians". Its actually quite treasonous what Pelosi said.

Treasonous? Oh come on. No, what she said is basically, "These are our neighbors, we should try to help"

Nothing about free houses, free Bush-phones, or healthcare...just that these are Americans (our neighbors) and we need to figure out how we can help the crisis.



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/pelosi-we-are-all-americans-now.php

Excellent example of a blog taking her quote out of context in an attempt to stir up outrage.

TJMAC77SP
07-07-2014, 07:32 PM
I don't think she meant that they are all welcome to just come on in.



Treasonous? Oh come on. No, what she said is basically, "These are our neighbors, we should try to help"

Nothing about free houses, free Bush-phones, or healthcare...just that these are Americans (our neighbors) and we need to figure out how we can help the crisis.




Excellent example of a blog taking her quote out of context in an attempt to stir up outrage.

Well to be honest her remarks themselves were disingenuous. The fact that we are all Americans is not really relevant to the conversation. It is hollow political rhetoric. There is a crisis and her remarks were all she really offered. I would like to see the house pass some kind of immigration reform but rhetoric won't solve the problem

hustonj
07-07-2014, 08:09 PM
Stupid question . . ..

Why is it that the progressives are always saying that we need to copy the socialized governments in Europe, right up until we discuss immigration, when they say we need to welcome and support all comers, as compared to those socialized European governments that keep even important, technically skilled workers on short leashes?

Are we supposed to be like them, or not? I'm confused about what the goal is, again.

Measure Man
07-07-2014, 08:51 PM
Stupid question . . ..

I agree


Why is it that the progressives are always saying that we need to copy the socialized governments in Europe, right up until we discuss immigration, when they say we need to welcome and support all comers,

I don't think "progressives" are saying we should copy every aspect of anyone else's government.

Why is it that conservatives think if someone else does something well, that trying to learn from them is tantamount to wanting to be this other country in all aspects?


as compared to those socialized European governments that keep even important, technically skilled workers on short leashes?

Perhaps those progressives do not admire that aspect of whichever government you are speaking of, but they do admire their healthcare system....could it be possible? or do you have to love everything about a place in order to admire one part of it?

For example...a common facebook post from my conservative friends, reads:


SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt.

Does this mean conservatives want our country to be more like N. Korea, Afghanistan and Iran?


Are we supposed to be like them, or not? I'm confused about what the goal is, again.

Indeed...are we supposed to be more like them or not? Seems to me a lot of conservatives wish we were North Korea....or even Russia with conservatives latest love affair with Putin.

TJMAC77SP
07-07-2014, 11:30 PM
I agree



I don't think "progressives" are saying we should copy every aspect of anyone else's government.

Why is it that conservatives think if someone else does something well, that trying to learn from them is tantamount to wanting to be this other country in all aspects?



Perhaps those progressives do not admire that aspect of whichever government you are speaking of, but they do admire their healthcare system....could it be possible? or do you have to love everything about a place in order to admire one part of it?

For example...a common facebook post from my conservative friends, reads:



Does this mean conservatives want our country to be more like N. Korea, Afghanistan and Iran?





You see that kind of post on FB often?!? Another reason I don't get on FB very often...............

I agree with you to the extent that the policies etc of the cited country are unrelated to the topic. But, for example to cite the social programs paid for (or subsidized) in a country like Sweden I think it would be on topic to cite their rather high tax burden.

Measure Man
07-07-2014, 11:43 PM
You see that kind of post on FB often?!? Another reason I don't get on FB very often...............

Yeah...I get a lot of stuff like that...political memes, links to articles to induce outrage...and take a quiz to find out what kind of bacteria you are.

I'm on FB pretty regular...find it a great way to keep in touch with family and friends that are spread around the world...but, FB is not very conducive to a probing conversation, poltical or otherwise, so I rarely comment on the political stuff. Sometimes I can't help it though.



I agree with you to the extent that the policies etc of the cited country are unrelated to the topic.

Then you agree with the entire extent of my response.


But, for example to cite the social programs paid for (or subsidized) in a country like Sweden I think it would be on topic to cite their rather high tax burden.

That's fair.

WILDJOKER5
07-08-2014, 01:19 PM
I don't think she meant that they are all welcome to just come on in.Actually quite so. She said she would take them all in if she could.


Treasonous? Oh come on. No, what she said is basically, "These are our neighbors, we should try to help"When you sit out there with a welcoming committee, I would call that treasonous since she was incharge at a time when there should have been more border fences being built. Now she is greeting them as they break the law.


Nothing about free houses, free Bush-phones, or healthcare...just that these are Americans (our neighbors) and we need to figure out how we can help the crisis.I see what you did there. I didnt call it "Obamaphones", so you went a head and called them "bush-phones". Yes, they started under Bush, but have grown 1000% under Obama. But hey, those who work and pay for their own phone are taxed to pay for the poor to have their own smart phones.

Anyways, its a manufactured crisis. And one that the Mexican government and the Obama administration are cunducting to flood the system. If 1 American can be found and detained by the Mexican government for accidently crossing into Mexico, how is it that they are missing 62,000 kids and adults marching from the southern border to America?


Excellent example of a blog taking her quote out of context in an attempt to stir up outrage.How was it out of context?

WILDJOKER5
07-08-2014, 01:22 PM
Yeah...I get a lot of stuff like that...political memes, links to articles to induce outrage...and take a quiz to find out what kind of bacteria you are.Yeah, I see those memes all the time too. Like the one that said "Shame on Hobby Loby". Or the one that talked about how 5 catholic male justices are keeping women from recieving birth control. Things like that which are completely false just to stir up the masses.

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2014, 02:16 PM
Yeah...I get a lot of stuff like that...political memes, links to articles to induce outrage...and take a quiz to find out what kind of bacteria you are.

I'm on FB pretty regular...find it a great way to keep in touch with family and friends that are spread around the world...but, FB is not very conducive to a probing conversation, poltical or otherwise, so I rarely comment on the political stuff. Sometimes I can't help it though.




Then you agree with the entire extent of my response.



That's fair.

Yeah, I saw a meme on FB (which I think also appeared here as well) about the 4th being a celebration of a bunch of old white slave owners who didn't want to pay their taxes and another which tied in taking land from the Indians. Aside from the historical inaccuracies it brought out several even more ignorant comments from people who purportedly have graduated at least high school and therefore stand as a condemnation of our education system.

hustonj
07-08-2014, 02:36 PM
I don't think "progressives" are saying we should copy every aspect of anyone else's government.

Then you are very fortunately not having discussions with the same progressives that I am.

I am being told that we also need to copy the European concept that you own your job, and that your employer does not have a right to fire you . . .. I man I know (friend married him) owns a business in Northern Europe. When she caught an employee stealing thousands of Euros from the company, and then proved that he has been doing it for years, his response was "I know. It is cheaper to let him take the money than it is to get the courts to let me fire him."

Progressives are telling me that not copying those labor laws is wrong. Edit: She's one of them, amazingly enough.


Why is it that conservatives think if someone else does something well, that trying to learn from them is tantamount to wanting to be this other country in all aspects?

Why is it that an opinion that somebody else does something well seems to automatically negate the question of whether we should be doing it at all? As somebody who swore to defend our Constitution, not individual political agendas, I try to ask that question every time somebody talks about what we "need" to be doing. Very rarely is their perceived "need" explicitly a power of the Federal government. And, as we all know, any power not explicitly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the people.

It is amazing how well that particualr bit gets ignored in favor of "but, this phrase justifies extending the authority of the Federal government to include . . ." regardless of the fact that the phrase in question is usually being misquoted in order to force the "justification."

The only power explicitly granted to the Federal government with regards to immigration in the Constitution is the authority to identify specific State-approved immigrants as undesireable. That's it. Please, don't believe me. Check the Constitution for yourself. The existing Federal immigration process is entirely over-reach of Federal authority. The Constitution recognizes that the individual State has to approve immigrants before the Federal government CAN get involved. If Texas and Califoria want to refuse all immigrants, that is supposed to be the States' right as part of their sovereignty. Too bad our Federal government doesn't recognize the sovereignty of, well, anybody.

WILDJOKER5
07-08-2014, 03:01 PM
Why is it that conservatives think if someone else does something well, that trying to learn from them is tantamount to wanting to be this other country in all aspects?
Conservatives dont think that way at all. They actually embrace that ideology....as long as it is agreed upon by the localities and the population within. Not through federal regulations and beurocracies. People leave places like Cali, MI, IL with high taxes and high crime for places like TX, ND, and FL. But yet then comes the federal government to make the entire US like those places where people are leaving. Sadly, a lot of rules and laws are made for the country because of a certain state(s) policies which fail and to keep businesses like Boeing from leaving Washington to go to SC. I mean if you are really wanting to copy policies that work, why not copy the states which have the best job growth before looking at a different country? Different countries mean different mind sets of the people as Rusty has explained so many times here before. The American people are not like those of EU. The traditions are different and the mind set is different. As I have said before and my signature line says, Progressivism's ideas are so great, that you need laws to make everyone follow them.

BENDER56
07-08-2014, 03:05 PM
Actually his use of maybe was correct.

Nah. "Maybe" means "perhaps." He needs the two-word, "may be," as in, "could be," "might be," etc.

WILDJOKER5
07-08-2014, 03:10 PM
Maybe we should stop calling the whole contitnent of Asia "Asia" because it maybe offensive? Hell, Pelosi called us all "Americans" as she greeted the illegals flowing over the boarder.


Nah. "Maybe" means "perhaps." He needs the two-word, "may be," as in, "could be," "might be," etc.

As in "[Perhaps] we should...."? I mean seriously? This was a few pages ago. Lets move on please. Ooops, I mean "Let's".

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 03:31 PM
Actually quite so. She said she would take them all in if she could.

Good grief man...she said we are all Americans, north and south in this hemisphere. This was the part you quoted as some type of outrageous statement, which is simply 100% accurate. It should be obvious that she was not saying we are all US citizens...since she mentions the entire hemisphere. She was simply trying to say "we're neighbors"


When you sit out there with a welcoming committee, I would call that treasonous since she was incharge at a time when there should have been more border fences being built. Now she is greeting them as they break the law.

So...was it a treasonous welcoming committee when Gov. Perry visits the border, too?


I see what you did there. I didnt call it "Obamaphones", so you went a head and called them "bush-phones". Yes, they started under Bush,

Right.

You might also be interested to learn that the treatment of the children crossing the border is mandated by a law passed under the Bush administration, which prohibits unaccompanied minors from being simply "sent back".


but have grown 1000% under Obama. But hey, those who work and pay for their own phone are taxed to pay for the poor to have their own smart phones.

Yes, we know how the Bush-phones work.


Anyways, its a manufactured crisis. And one that the Mexican government and the Obama administration are cunducting to flood the system. If 1 American can be found and detained by the Mexican government for accidently crossing into Mexico, how is it that they are missing 62,000 kids and adults marching from the southern border to America?

Okay...I want to see the Marine released as much as anybody. But, he wasn't detained for accidently crossing into Mexico...he was detained for illegally bringing in a firearm.


How was it out of context?

Because she is not offering anybody free welcome and citizenship.

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 03:37 PM
Yeah, I see those memes all the time too. Like the one that said "Shame on Hobby Loby". Or the one that talked about how 5 catholic male justices are keeping women from recieving birth control. Things like that which are completely false just to stir up the masses.

The 5 that voted in favor of Hobby Lobby were male and catholic, were they not?

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 03:50 PM
Then you are very fortunately not having discussions with the same progressives that I am.

Can you quote maybe some that have stated we should model every aspect of European govts?


I am being told that we also need to copy the European concept that you own your job, and that your employer does not have a right to fire you . . .. I man I know (friend married him) owns a business in Northern Europe. When she caught an employee stealing thousands of Euros from the company, and then proved that he has been doing it for years, his response was "I know. It is cheaper to let him take the money than it is to get the courts to let me fire him."

So, how does this then tranlate to us also following their immigration policy?


Progressives are telling me that not copying those labor laws is wrong. Edit: She's one of them, amazingly enough.

Okay...again, how does this mean we should follow everything they do?


Why is it that an opinion that somebody else does something well seems to automatically negate the question of whether we should be doing it at all?

Well, it doesn't. But, there is also nothing wrong with looking around the world at other countries and figuring out if they've had some success in some areas...and that maybe we can improve in those areas by modeling them.

Your original premise was that because progressive like some aspects of European government, they must also like their immigration policy. This is not logical. We can discuss specific aspects of European government all day...but just because I say I like the fact you can still smoke in bars in Germany, doesn't mean I must also therefore approve of Germany's VAT system.


As somebody who swore to defend our Constitution, not individual political agendas, I try to ask that question every time somebody talks about what we "need" to be doing. Very rarely is their perceived "need" explicitly a power of the Federal government. And, as we all know, any power not explicitly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the people.

It is amazing how well that particualr bit gets ignored in favor of "but, this phrase justifies extending the authority of the Federal government to include . . ." regardless of the fact that the phrase in question is usually being misquoted in order to force the "justification."

The only power explicitly granted to the Federal government with regards to immigration in the Constitution is the authority to identify specific State-approved immigrants as undesireable. That's it. Please, don't believe me. Check the Constitution for yourself. The existing Federal immigration process is entirely over-reach of Federal authority. The Constitution recognizes that the individual State has to approve immigrants before the Federal government CAN get involved. If Texas and Califoria want to refuse all immigrants, that is supposed to be the States' right as part of their sovereignty. Too bad our Federal government doesn't recognize the sovereignty of, well, anybody.

Okay...so, interesting info. Great. I'm still not sure what this has to do with progressives and European governments. Yes, I think most of us will agree that the Constitution is interpreted today in a lot of different ways from its orginal intent.

So, you like some European govt. immmigration policies better than ours?

WILDJOKER5
07-08-2014, 04:44 PM
Good grief man...she said we are all Americans, north and south in this hemisphere. This was the part you quoted as some type of outrageous statement, which is simply 100% accurate. It should be obvious that she was not saying we are all US citizens...since she mentions the entire hemisphere. She was simply trying to say "we're neighbors"Thats BS. You dont call the person 10 houses down your neighbor and say "bring your 10-20 kids to my place so I can give you a place to stay next door against their will."


So...was it a treasonous welcoming committee when Gov. Perry visits the border, too?He visited the border, was there a greeting party for illegals or just for Obama to speak on the matter with him? I dont see anything about him addressing illegals as they crossed over.


Right.

You might also be interested to learn that the treatment of the children crossing the border is mandated by a law passed under the Bush administration, which prohibits unaccompanied minors from being simply "sent back".Yes, I know. Wasnt that part of the bill that said we should also be building a border fence which also hasnt been followed? Same thing that Reagan got promised?


Yes, we know how the Bush-phones work.Yep, progressive ideas just keep expanding is how they work till they eventually cost extravigant amounts of money of the working class's disposable income.


Okay...I want to see the Marine released as much as anybody. But, he wasn't detained for accidently crossing into Mexico...he was detained for illegally bringing in a firearm.So lets give Mexico the biggest supplies of guns to the cartels?


Because she is not offering anybody free welcome and citizenship.
She is just ushering them into someone elses home. Citizenship is on its way.

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2014, 04:45 PM
Nah. "Maybe" means "perhaps." He needs the two-word, "may be," as in, "could be," "might be," etc.

I didn't catch the second use of maybe. The first was correct. Sorry WJ5 he is right about your use of the second 'maybe'.

WILDJOKER5
07-08-2014, 04:45 PM
The 5 that voted in favor of Hobby Lobby were male and catholic, were they not?

But does their ruling keep any woman, especially working at hobby lobby, from getting BC?

sandsjames
07-08-2014, 04:50 PM
But does their ruling keep any woman, especially working at hobby lobby, from getting BC?

Nope...sure doesn't. As a matter of fact, they still cover 16 (or 17) of the "requirements". Oh, and they will not fire someone if they decide to purchase Plan B (and others of it's kind) on their own.

It's no different than a company not hiring someone because they smoke. It's a choice of the business that has to do with the insurance coverage. I don't see the smoking issue at the SCOTUS.

hustonj
07-08-2014, 04:54 PM
Can you quote maybe some that have stated we should model every aspect of European govts?

Sure, I can go back through my personal email store on my computer at home and social feeds for the past decade or so to find speciifc qutes for you during this quick break I'm taking from doing my job . . .. [eyeroll]


Well, it doesn't. But, there is also nothing wrong with looking around the world at other countries and figuring out if they've had some success in some areas...and that maybe we can improve in those areas by modeling them.

This starts with the assumption that we SHOULD BE doing them! If you can't sell that it is the federal government's responsibility to do something, having a mdoel to discuss and potentially emulate is pointless. You claim that we don't need to assume we should be doing things, and then demand that I forget that and start evaluating how we can improve processes we shouldn't actually be implementing. Why is that?


Your original premise was that because progressive like some aspects of European government, they must also like their immigration policy.

False. The premise you assigned to me so that you could enterain yourself is as described.


This is not logical.

Quite true, this behavior on your part is not logical. It reeks of boredom.


So, you like some European govt. immmigration policies better than ours?

I like almost every immigration policy better than ours. Wait, that's not really true. I like it when countries actually implement and enforce their policies, and wish that our government would do the same.

On top of wishing that our governmental policies support the Constitution's restrictions on our Federal government.


Section 9
1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


While this is readily recognized as pertaining to the import of slaves, I don't understand why the inclusion of the verb migrate, which strongly implies voluntary or willful movement of and by the individual in question, gets ignored in favor of the expansive interpretation that since the Federal government gets to determine how to become a naturalized citizen, that only the Federal government is supposed to determine immigration law. Federal over-reach.

If we eliminate al the Federal over-reach in place and truly recognize the sovereignty of each of the individual states again, most of the complaints about what the Fed isn't doing right would be more correctly addressed at the State level, REGARDLESS of specific topic.

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 04:59 PM
But does their ruling keep any woman, especially working at hobby lobby, from getting BC?

Probably not...

sandsjames
07-08-2014, 05:03 PM
You claim that we don't need to assume we should be doing things, and then demand that I forget that and start evaluating how we can improve processes we shouldn't actually be implementing. Why is that? Dude...WTF is it with your overuse (or misunderstanding) of the word "demand"? Are you an O-2 or O-3?

WILDJOKER5
07-08-2014, 05:07 PM
Probably not...

So even though 5 men with catholic religious view points (usually against all contraception) ruled that a business owner doesnt have to provide ALL forms of bc for women, doesnt mean that they are trying to stop all women from getting all forms of contraception does it? Hyperbole and straight up lie to gin up outrage from the base is what it amounts to. Kind of how you would describe Sarah Palin calling the rationing of healthcare under obamacare "death pannels" as a lie right? Politifact gave it the "lie of the year right"? Even though at least one case showed us that a beurocrat sentenced a 12 yo girl to die by dening her a lung transplant from an adult even though doctors approved it and would have stuck if not for the intervention of a district judge.

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 05:14 PM
Sure, I can go back through my personal email store on my computer at home and social feeds for the past decade or so to find speciifc qutes for you during this quick break I'm taking from doing my job . . .. [eyeroll]

Okay...so no mainstream published progressives say this...only private conversations you've had that no one can say one way or another....Like I could say, "almost all conservatives I speak to are openly racist...why are most conservatives racist?

Disengenous strawman argument.


This starts with the assumption that we SHOULD BE doing them! If you can't sell that it is the federal government's responsibility to do something, having a mdoel to discuss and potentially emulate is pointless. You claim that we don't need to assume we should be doing things, and then demand that I forget that and start evaluating how we can improve processes we shouldn't actually be implementing. Why is that?

No, I think whether we should be doing them at all is part of the discussion, as well.


False. The premise you assigned to me so that you could enterain yourself is as described.

Here was your quote:


Why is it that the progressives are always saying that we need to copy the socialized governments in Europe, right up until we discuss immigration, when they say we need to welcome and support all comers, as compared to those socialized European governments that keep even important, technically skilled workers on short leashes?

Are we supposed to be like them, or not? I'm confused about what the goal is, again.

You confused yourself...assuming that someone who supports copying the socialzed European governments is supposed to also support their immigration policy. Again, i can't speak to the private emails from your progressive friends...but, you are saying they like somethings about European govts and you are therefore confused why they don't like everything else.


Quite true, this behavior on your part is not logical. It reeks of boredom.

Oh..ZING! You are super smart. But, yes, I'm a little bored.


I like almost every immigration policy better than ours. Wait, that's not really true. I like it when countries actually implement and enforce their policies, and wish that our government would do the same.

Oh, so now you want to be like European nations...what are you some kind of socialist?


On top of wishing that our governmental policies support the Constitution's restrictions on our Federal government.

On top of...I mean isn't this confusing to you? Do you want to be like them or not?


While this is readily recognized as pertaining to the import of slaves, I don't understand why the inclusion of the verb migrate, which strongly implies voluntary or willful movement of and by the individual in question, gets ignored in favor of the expansive interpretation that since the Federal government gets to determine how to become a naturalized citizen, that only the Federal government is supposed to determine immigration law. Federal over-reach.

If we eliminate al the Federal over-reach in place and truly recognize the sovereignty of each of the individual states again, most of the complaints about what the Fed isn't doing right would be more correctly addressed at the State level, REGARDLESS of specific topic.

Okay, I get it...you don't want the federal govt. messing in immigration. Why didn't you just say that instead of trying to find some nefarious hypocrisy from progressives who like some things and not other things as Europe...jsut as you yourself do, albeit different things.

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 05:28 PM
So even though 5 men with catholic religious view points (usually against all contraception) ruled that a business owner doesnt have to provide ALL forms of bc for women, doesnt mean that they are trying to stop all women from getting all forms of contraception does it? Hyperbole and straight up lie to gin up outrage from the base is what it amounts to. Kind of how you would describe Sarah Palin calling the rationing of healthcare under obamacare "death pannels" as a lie right? Politifact gave it the "lie of the year right"? Even though at least one case showed us that a beurocrat sentenced a 12 yo girl to die by dening her a lung transplant from an adult even though doctors approved it and would have stuck if not for the intervention of a district judge.

Yes...most of those meme's and "bumper stickers" and articles to spur up outrage are lies and distortions...I see a lot more on the conservative side since I have a lot of conservative friends, but I do see a lot of liberal ones also.

Yes...death panels is a lie.

It is a fact that there are more people in need of organs than there are organs available. It does not matter how you set your priority list...someone is going to rank ahead of someone else. This had nothing to do with "rationing healthcare", or "death panels"...it had to do with how the priority list is generated. Have you thought about the person who did not get a lung that got bumped off? Did that person get "sentenced to die"?

Yes, we can discuss and opine on what the priority list should be or who should be on top...it doesn't change the fact that someone gets left off...that's not the same as a death panel rationing healthcare...so suggesting that this case is proof of Obamacare death panels is a lie.

Now why children are placed behind adults in getting adult transplants, I can not say. ON the surface it does not seem right...but I do not know why the priority is the way it is...or was, I honestly don't know if it has since been changed. It would seem to me that medical triage should treat the most severe first...so I don't get why the policy would contradict that.

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 05:56 PM
Thats BS. You dont call the person 10 houses down your neighbor and say "bring your 10-20 kids to my place so I can give you a place to stay next door against their will."

He visited the border, was there a greeting party for illegals or just for Obama to speak on the matter with him? I dont see anything about him addressing illegals as they crossed over.

So, if he speaks to one of the illegals, does that make it treason?

I don't think Pelosi invited any of them to stay illegally...she is more or less campaigning for us to do something...for congress to act.

Everyone agrees that immigration is a problem...but nothing is being done, why? Because the GOP believe the problem works towards their political gain...so they are just fine with the problems as long as Obama and Democrats get the blame..


Yes, I know. Wasnt that part of the bill that said we should also be building a border fence which also hasnt been followed? Same thing that Reagan got promised?

I don't think so.


Yep, progressive ideas just keep expanding is how they work till they eventually cost extravigant amounts of money of the working class's disposable income.

Right.


So lets give Mexico the biggest supplies of guns to the cartels?

Dumb idea, for sure.


She is just ushering them into someone elses home. Citizenship is on its way.

perhaps that is her goal, I can not say. But, if she manages to poltically convince enough legislators and th Pres to do so...it still doesn't mean it's treason.

sandsjames
07-08-2014, 07:37 PM
So, if he speaks to one of the illegals, does that make it treason?

I don't think Pelosi invited any of them to stay illegally...she is more or less campaigning for us to do something...for congress to act.

Everyone agrees that immigration is a problem...but nothing is being done, why? Because the GOP believe the problem works towards their political gain...so they are just fine with the problems as long as Obama and Democrats get the blame..



I don't think so.



Right.



Dumb idea, for sure.



perhaps that is her goal, I can not say. But, if she manages to poltically convince enough legislators and th Pres to do so...it still doesn't mean it's treason.

Let's not forget that the prior administration also had a plan that was shot down. Ain't politics grand.

garhkal
07-08-2014, 07:46 PM
Then you are very fortunately not having discussions with the same progressives that I am.

I am being told that we also need to copy the European concept that you own your job, and that your employer does not have a right to fire you . . .. I man I know (friend married him) owns a business in Northern Europe. When she caught an employee stealing thousands of Euros from the company, and then proved that he has been doing it for years, his response was "I know. It is cheaper to let him take the money than it is to get the courts to let me fire him."


WTF Over? People are wanting us to copy these laws when crap like the above happens? I'd like to know what they are smoking, as it must be diminishing their minds!


The 5 that voted in favor of Hobby Lobby were male and catholic, were they not?

Male yes. Catholic, not sure. BUT that they are shouldn't automatically make their decision on the case wrong. Which is what i feel that wildjoker was on about, that those memes/posters only felt they ruled that way cause they WERE male and catholic.


Nope...sure doesn't. As a matter of fact, they still cover 16 (or 17) of the "requirements". Oh, and they will not fire someone if they decide to purchase Plan B (and others of it's kind) on their own.

It's no different than a company not hiring someone because they smoke. It's a choice of the business that has to do with the insurance coverage. I don't see the smoking issue at the SCOTUS.

That part makes me wonder how quickly a lawsuit would be up in the court system if a firm did it regarding someone's LGBT status cause of the STD(s) they have (or may have), or an obese person?

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2014, 08:13 PM
Probably not...

That is my assessment as well. Obviously the opponents see this as a 'slippery slope' which Justice Ginsburg alluded to but a little intellectual integrity is called for here. They paint a picture that BC choices for women will be severely (and in some cases totally) limited and I heard more than more spokesperson refer to the threat to women's health. That's just re-Goddamned-iculous.

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2014, 08:16 PM
I have seen and heard the gender and religion of the five Justices in the majority bandied about as if that in and by itself answers all questions as to why they came to this decision. If that is true then the same can (and should) be said of the three Justices who dissented.

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 08:23 PM
Male yes. Catholic, not sure.

This is public knowledge.


BUT that they are shouldn't automatically make their decision on the case wrong. Which is what i feel that wildjoker was on about, that those memes/posters only felt they ruled that way cause they WERE male and catholic.

I think it's impossible to separate the person from the gender and religion they are. IOW, it's nonsensical to wonder how they might have ruled had they been female and not Catholic...as they would no longer be the same person.

They ruled the way they did, I suppose, because of their world view and how they see this issue...it's impossible to determine how much/what of that world view is due to their gender and religion. We only know that all 5 of them have this in common and voted the same way.


That part makes me wonder how quickly a lawsuit would be up in the court system if a firm did it regarding someone's LGBT status cause of the STD(s) they have (or may have), or an obese person?

Well...yes, I think the troubling part of this decision is the whole idea that your employer has some input into the types of medical care you and your doctor decide is appropriate, based on what they want to "pay for"...

I put "pay for" in quotes because this is another curious topic for me. If these benefits are provided as part of your compensation for working...I'm not sure that really qualified as the company's money anymore. We have this discussion with employees a lot...as to whether benefits that company pays for directly are "the company paying for..."...or whether it is just a different form of compensation, and that the company should not be able to impose it's beliefs any more than they can on how you spend your own money.

Don't like Plan B...don't take Plan B.

So, another way to look at it...does this religous freedom extend to an owner who is Scientologist not providing pyschiatric care? A Christian Scientist not providing most any care? A Jehovah's Witness not provide for blood transfusions?

I don't doubt for a second the sincerity of the Hobby Lobby owners...and part of me says this is more of a problem with the overreach of the ACA than anything else...but the idea of minimum standards in health insurance coverage I don't think is too far out there, so then it's just a matter of what should be that standard or not, obviously disagreement there.

Measure Man
07-08-2014, 08:26 PM
I have seen and heard the gender and religion of the five Justices in the majority bandied about as if that in and by itself answers all questions as to why they came to this decision. If that is true then the same can (and should) be said of the three Justices who dissented.

Four dissented.

sandsjames
07-08-2014, 08:33 PM
That part makes me wonder how quickly a lawsuit would be up in the court system if a firm did it regarding someone's LGBT status cause of the STD(s) they have (or may have), or an obese person?

Yeah...pretty soon getting a job is going to be like applying for life insurance.

TJMAC77SP
07-09-2014, 01:26 AM
Four dissented.

Sorry, I forgot about Breyer (although he didn't sign the dissenting opinion). My point stands. If we are going to make assumptions as to why a Justice ruled a particular way that assumption should apply to all justices.

garhkal
07-09-2014, 07:38 AM
Well...yes, I think the troubling part of this decision is the whole idea that your employer has some input into the types of medical care you and your doctor decide is appropriate, based on what they want to "pay for"...


Exactly. Where does it get stopped? Can i, if say i was a employer, decide you can't use our medical insurance to pay for Sport related injuries you sustain when not working?

sandsjames
07-09-2014, 11:32 AM
Exactly. Where does it get stopped? Can i, if say i was a employer, decide you can't use our medical insurance to pay for Sport related injuries you sustain when not working?


Does the company who employs people in a dangerous occupation pay the same premiums for it's workers as a company who employs check-out clerks? Or are the premiums different? Honestly, I have no idea how the rates work.

Also, does each thing covered cost more? If so, then sure the employer should have a say.

WILDJOKER5
07-09-2014, 12:22 PM
Well...yes, I think the troubling part of this decision is the whole idea that your employer has some input into the types of medical care you and your doctor decide is appropriate, based on what they want to "pay for"...

I put "pay for" in quotes because this is another curious topic for me. If these benefits are provided as part of your compensation for working...I'm not sure that really qualified as the company's money anymore. We have this discussion with employees a lot...as to whether benefits that company pays for directly are "the company paying for..."...or whether it is just a different form of compensation, and that the company should not be able to impose it's beliefs any more than they can on how you spend your own money.

Don't like Plan B...don't take Plan B.

So, another way to look at it...does this religous freedom extend to an owner who is Scientologist not providing pyschiatric care? A Christian Scientist not providing most any care? A Jehovah's Witness not provide for blood transfusions?

I don't doubt for a second the sincerity of the Hobby Lobby owners...and part of me says this is more of a problem with the overreach of the ACA than anything else...but the idea of minimum standards in health insurance coverage I don't think is too far out there, so then it's just a matter of what should be that standard or not, obviously disagreement there.

We all know where this whole "Emplyers paying for healthcare" benefits package started from right? The government forcing a pay freeze during WWII. Damaging practicess always start with government intervention. It was one of the founding tenants of liberalism was to keep government out of the private sector affairs as much as possible so the best companies would thrive while the shaddiest will die. And I cant believe anyone would call Obama a socialist...yet. He is definately more facist right now with mandating everyone pay for a private business or be fined/taxed. If he forced single payer on us, then I would say socialist. But one extreme usually leads to the other extreme sooner or later. Clinton led to Bush, Bush led to Obama. Its a pengulum that is every increasing momentum.

And its not your money, because if you leave the company, the benefits dont go with you. When you get out of the military, you dont get to keep your SGLI even though you have paid X amount of years for that payoff. IF you got paid the cash to your hand instead of the company paying for your insurance, you can keep the same insurance and never have break in the benefits while you changed jobs. Its just like social security and unemployment insurance. Unless you are saying you and most of America is too incompetitent in how to spend your own money? But for me, I rather be paid and be able to keep that money in my hands and decide where to save and where to spend as I chose instead of the federal government leviathen forcibly taking my money and spending my money on different things other than my healthcare, insurance, or savings for unemployment. But hey, its a legal ponzi scheme because a gang organized itself better than any other gang of criminals and you feel you have power because you get to vote on who steels from you.

Measure Man
07-09-2014, 03:49 PM
We all know where this whole "Emplyers paying for healthcare" benefits package started from right? The government forcing a pay freeze during WWII.

Or, we could say companies began offering it to compete during a labor shortage.


Damaging practicess always start with government intervention. It was one of the founding tenants of liberalism was to keep government out of the private sector affairs as much as possible so the best companies would thrive while the shaddiest will die.

Yes. Many of the rants against "liberals" have nothing to do with liberalism, and the people you refer to as liberals, are not.


And I cant believe anyone would call Obama a socialist...yet. He is definately more facist right now with mandating everyone pay for a private business or be fined/taxed. If he forced single payer on us, then I would say socialist. But one extreme usually leads to the other extreme sooner or later. Clinton led to Bush, Bush led to Obama. Its a pengulum that is every increasing momentum.

Right...each side is mostly concerned with their own power.


And its not your money, because if you leave the company, the benefits dont go with you. When you get out of the military, you dont get to keep your SGLI even though you have paid X amount of years for that payoff.

Not sure about this one. I mean any insurance you have, you only have while it is being paid, generally. You pay car insurance...but when you stop paying you don't have it anymore. That doesn't mean it isn't yours while you have it.

SGLI is term insurance...when the payments stop, the coverage stops. Even if you buy private term insurance...you don't have anything once the payments stop. But SGLI, unlike some "employer paid" benefits, is actually paid by you...and you can choose not to pay it and keep your money. I don't see how you can say it isn't yours.


IF you got paid the cash to your hand instead of the company paying for your insurance, you can keep the same insurance and never have break in the benefits while you changed jobs. Its just like social security and unemployment insurance. Unless you are saying you and most of America is too incompetitent in how to spend your own money? But for me, I rather be paid and be able to keep that money in my hands and decide where to save and where to spend as I chose instead of the federal government leviathen forcibly taking my money and spending my money on different things other than my healthcare, insurance, or savings for unemployment. But hey, its a legal ponzi scheme because a gang organized itself better than any other gang of criminals and you feel you have power because you get to vote on who steels from you.

You're not going to convince me Social Security was a bad idea. Sure, not everyone gets everything out that they put in, and mathematically perhaps you could do better in a private investment...but it's kept a lot of people from poverty in their later years. Maybe they had some misfortune at one point, or the market crashed at an inopportune time for them...whatever. I know you'd probably like to say it's their own fault and they should suffer accordingly in their later years, but I don't see that as a great idea.

Unemployment insurance, like any insurance, is simply sharing a risk. If there are 100,000 people, there is a good chance a few thousand of them will get laid off at some point...and we don't know who. So, the whole idea of saving and investing your own money works great if you are one of the fortunate ones, but not so great if you aren't. Perhaps this would be better off as a private insurance deal, but I don't know of any private unemployment insurance...

I do very much dislike the idea that the govt. has borrowed from social security, however. Then they tell us it has no money and gets people all panicky and wanted to throw out social security because they think it's going broke. It isn't. If that fund were not borrowed from it has plenty of money for the foreseeable future. The models that predict SS going bankrupt are just that...models, based on a worst case scenario.

Measure Man
07-09-2014, 04:07 PM
Does the company who employs people in a dangerous occupation pay the same premiums for it's workers as a company who employs check-out clerks? Or are the premiums different? Honestly, I have no idea how the rates work.

Also, does each thing covered cost more? If so, then sure the employer should have a say.

I think it would be some sweet irony in the Hobby Lobby case if the insurer charged them more for blocking these birth controls...since we all know having children is more expensive than birth control.

That said...as I mentioned previously, I do not doubt Hobby Lobby's sincerity and am sure they would be willing to pay the higher premiums.

WILDJOKER5
07-09-2014, 05:33 PM
Or, we could say companies began offering it to compete during a labor shortage.Thats the same thing. There was a pay freeze so the only way to compete for labor was with these offers of benefits.


Yes. Many of the rants against "liberals" have nothing to do with liberalism, and the people you refer to as liberals, are not.Its why I have stopped refering to the left as "liberals." The left follows nothing of beginning liberal philosophies.


Not sure about this one. I mean any insurance you have, you only have while it is being paid, generally. You pay car insurance...but when you stop paying you don't have it anymore. That doesn't mean it isn't yours while you have it.You can elect to go to another provider which could be cheaper.


SGLI is term insurance...when the payments stop, the coverage stops. Even if you buy private term insurance...you don't have anything once the payments stop. But SGLI, unlike some "employer paid" benefits, is actually paid by you...and you can choose not to pay it and keep your money. I don't see how you can say it isn't yours.Yes it is, it is also a sort of savings account that gets paid once you die. I will have to check more into this one I admit, but its better if you bought your own.


You're not going to convince me Social Security was a bad idea. Sure, not everyone gets everything out that they put in, and mathematically perhaps you could do better in a private investment...but it's kept a lot of people from poverty in their later years. Actually, social security is poverty level finance. If you saved that money yourself, you would come out far better off and when you die the money would be passed along to whom ever you chose. SS payments die with you and the government takes a wash on the debt it owes you. Usually the government comes out on top because the citizen doesnt get it all back till at least 95 or so. Was it "good" in the beginning when there was very little options for people to invest? Sure. But 80 years later it is not needed anymore.


Maybe they had some misfortune at one point, or the market crashed at an inopportune time for them...whatever. I know you'd probably like to say it's their own fault and they should suffer accordingly in their later years, but I don't see that as a great idea.Risk of investing sure. But whats the alternative? Stick it under your matress and let the feds steal through constant inflation and cheapening of the currency. Unless you had real silver dollars or quarters, your money in your wallet loses value every day by design. This has also been a scheme since money was first intoduced by governments mellenias ago.

Two, put it into a bank account with intrest that is lower than the rate of inflation, which leaves you with less money in the long run because the amount you put in doesnt buy the same amount when you take it out even with interest. And even less when you figure in being taxed on the interest that is less than the inflation.

Three, investment in something you think or a broker thinks will beat inflation. Realistate, Stocks, mutual funds, precious metals.


Unemployment insurance, like any insurance, is simply sharing a risk. If there are 100,000 people, there is a good chance a few thousand of them will get laid off at some point...and we don't know who. So, the whole idea of saving and investing your own money works great if you are one of the fortunate ones, but not so great if you aren't. Perhaps this would be better off as a private insurance deal, but I don't know of any private unemployment insurance...Its called savings accounts and putting money away from the time you start working to cover current expenses. It can be done with 4 revolving CDs which cant be touched until they mature, and then you can just recycle them if you still have a job or withdraw if you are laid off. What people refuse to do is take accountability for themselves and really, why should they when big daddy government is there for you?


I do very much dislike the idea that the govt. has borrowed from social security, however. Then they tell us it has no money and gets people all panicky and wanted to throw out social security because they think it's going broke. It isn't. If that fund were not borrowed from it has plenty of money for the foreseeable future. The models that predict SS going bankrupt are just that...models, based on a worst case scenario.
You're right, like if we borrow more than we can repay. Or if the opposition party doesnt do what you want them to do, then you can just claim not to have money to pay SS and blame it on your "enemies" like some spoiled spiteful child as POTUS.

Measure Man
07-09-2014, 05:47 PM
Thats the same thing. There was a pay freeze so the only way to compete for labor was with these offers of benefits.

I'm not up on the pay freeze really...just know the employer-provided healthcare came about while companies were ocmpeting for labor.


Its why I have stopped refering to the left as "liberals." The left follows nothing of beginning liberal philosophies.

fair enough.


You can elect to go to another provider which could be cheaper.

Yes it is, it is also a sort of savings account that gets paid once you die. I will have to check more into this one I admit, but its better if you bought your own.

SGLI is a fantastic deal that is difficult to beat. Of course, most term life insurance is based on your age, so maybe a young guy in his 20s can...but, I know you can not beat it once you get up there in years...of course, their entire "group" being servicemen tend to be young and healthy, so they probably have lower risks...


Actually, social security is poverty level finance. If you saved that money yourself, you would come out far better off and when you die the money would be passed along to whom ever you chose. SS payments die with you and the government takes a wash on the debt it owes you. Usually the government comes out on top because the citizen doesnt get it all back till at least 95 or so. Was it "good" in the beginning when there was very little options for people to invest? Sure. But 80 years later it is not needed anymore.

Yes, if you are fortunate enough to be gainfully employed for most of your life, you personally could probably do better with investing....but the unfortunate folks who maybe end up disabled wouldn't get their social security disability.

If you have minor children when you die, they receive benefits, as well.

"The govt." does not come out ahead on SS...that is a fenced off fund. Unfortunately they borrow from it...and you're right, probably more than they will ever be able to pay back.


Risk of investing sure. But whats the alternative? Stick it under your matress and let the feds steal through constant inflation and cheapening of the currency. Unless you had real silver dollars or quarters, your money in your wallet loses value every day by design. This has also been a scheme since money was first intoduced by governments mellenias ago.

Two, put it into a bank account with intrest that is lower than the rate of inflation, which leaves you with less money in the long run because the amount you put in doesnt buy the same amount when you take it out even with interest. And even less when you figure in being taxed on the interest that is less than the inflation.

Three, investment in something you think or a broker thinks will beat inflation. Realistate, Stocks, mutual funds, precious metals.

Oh, I'm a big fan of investing, you don't have to convince me.


Its called savings accounts and putting money away from the time you start working to cover current expenses. It can be done with 4 revolving CDs which cant be touched until they mature, and then you can just recycle them if you still have a job or withdraw if you are laid off. What people refuse to do is take accountability for themselves and really, why should they when big daddy government is there for you?

What people used to do is go hungry far more than they do now, also.


You're right, like if we borrow more than we can repay. Or if the opposition party doesnt do what you want them to do, then you can just claim not to have money to pay SS and blame it on your "enemies" like some spoiled spiteful child as POTUS.

Yep, or shut down the government...put the fear in people.

sandsjames
07-09-2014, 06:40 PM
The best way to ensure that your money is worth what it's worth and that you do not lose it through investment failure or death is to spend it.

Measure Man
07-09-2014, 07:28 PM
The best way to ensure that your money is worth what it's worth and that you do not lose it through investment failure or death is to spend it.

I "liked" this post only because there was no "love" button...lol.

This is great.