PDA

View Full Version : Changing the Redskins' Name



Grease Monkey
06-15-2014, 09:09 AM
It is inevitable now. The Washington Redskins will not keep their name much longer. Sure the term “Redskins” is offensive to literally one Native American tribe, one whole tribe, but we live in the age of “No one can be offended”. Senator, and part-time soul rapist, Harry Reid could wait to drag his Basset Hound of a face in front of the cameras during the initial moments of the Donald Sterling controversy to demand the NFL change the Redskins’ name. As that miserable douche face doesn’t tend to let things go, this issue is sure to find its way into the twat of Nancy Pelosi who will then spread her infection across the country demanding this “insensitive” name be changed. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s BS, this is going to happen.

There are other ideas, such as this petition to the White House (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/change-washington-redskins-logo-red-potato/W7gWmb2m) which suggests keeping the name, but changing the mascot to a red potato, thus removing the “racist” moniker from the Redskins name. It’s a nice compromise, but it also suggests a sense of humor and that can definitely not be tolerated. Where does it end though? What’s the next “offensive” team name? Perhaps the Cowboys? After all, George W. Bush was often referred to as a “Cowboy” and per Kanye West he “Hates Black people”. What goes after that? The 49ers represent miners during the gold rush that committed violent act upon Chinese immigrants, the Buccaneers and Raiders propagate piracy, the term “Dolphin” is often used as a metaphorical stand-in for “penis”, and the Jaguars are offensive to everyone who hates losers.

Chief_KO
06-15-2014, 12:30 PM
As sucky as the Redskins are, they should change their name to the "Washington Congressionals".

Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2014, 02:01 PM
What if they changed the name to the Fighting Whites and the mascot was a 1950's era white male in a business suit with a brief case?

How many people would be offended by that?

TJMAC77SP
06-15-2014, 03:06 PM
What if they changed the name to the Fighting Whites and the mascot was a 1950's era white male in a business suit with a brief case?

How many people would be offended by that?

No one. That would just be stupid.

Actually I take that back. With a team name like the Fighting Whites some groups would be offended but not the ones you are intimating.

BTW: While I personally think it is mostly inflated indignity driven by an attempt to garner publicity I would agree that it is probably time to throw in the hat and change the name.

sandsjames
06-15-2014, 03:18 PM
What if they changed the name to the Fighting Whites and the mascot was a 1950's era white male in a business suit with a brief case?

How many people would be offended by that?

Not too many white people, I'm sure.

Rusty Jones
06-16-2014, 12:14 PM
I think we could take lessons from conservatives, and simply "hint" at it just enough to allow for plausible deniability. And then when someone calls it "racist," we can simply tell them that they're "playing the race card" and we all move on with our lives.

How do we do that?

Simple... the Redskins keep their name, but they ditch the the current helmet and go back to the spear helmet:

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/168/full/1066.gif

Oh, it's racist? How do you know we're referring to Native Americans? Spears have existed on EVERY continent! I mean, come on, why do you have to make it about race? :-D

Chief_KO
06-16-2014, 12:19 PM
What if they changed the name to the Fighting Whites and the mascot was a 1950's era white male in a business suit with a brief case?

How many people would be offended by that?

We would prefer "Fighting WASPs", then you can use the insect as a logo and no one would know... Just like Hooters using an Owl. No one is the wiser...

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 12:47 PM
I think we could take lessons from conservatives, and simply "hint" at it just enough to allow for plausible deniability. And then when someone calls it "racist," we can simply tell them that they're "playing the race card" and we all move on with our lives.

How do we do that?

Simple... the Redskins keep their name, but they ditch the the current helmet and go back to the spear helmet:

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/168/full/1066.gif

Oh, it's racist? How do you know we're referring to Native Americans? Spears have existed on EVERY continent! I mean, come on, why do you have to make it about race? :-D

I'm going off topic to ask you a question about your avatar, but I think your response could possibly be relevant to the subject of skin tone.

What is your opinion of the character Sergeant Waters, from the movie, A Soldier's Story?

Do you see him as a monster created by segregation and racial discrimination? Clearly, he was a tortured and tragic figure, but I'm curious about your use of him as your avatar.

Great movie, by the way, and it contained a memorable performance by a young Denzel Washington.

I have to wonder what Sergeant Waters would say about the Redskins franchise if he where here today.

Rusty Jones
06-16-2014, 01:23 PM
I'm going off topic to ask you a question about your avatar, but I think your response could possibly be relevant to the subject of skin tone.

What is your opinion of the character Sergeant Waters, from the movie, A Soldier's Story?

Do you see him as a monster created by segregation and racial discrimination? Clearly, he was a tortured and tragic figure, but I'm curious about your use of him as your avatar.

Great movie, by the way, and it contained a memorable performance by a young Denzel Washington.

I have to wonder what Sergeant Waters would say about the Redskins franchise if he where here today.

I liked Sergeant Waters. He actually had a self-consciousness that's lacking in the black community today. It's my understanding that there were more blacks who thought like him in his day, until the Civil Rights Era and "black unity" killed it.

Personally, I think "black unity" does more harm than good. It's basically a bus from Point A (despair) to Point B (greatness), that refuses to move until everyone gets onboard... while failing to realize that not everyone can, or will, get onboard. Still, the bus continues to wait. Me? I'd rather say, "fuck you, I'm walking then."

I really do think that individualism is what makes whites so much more mobile.

Interesting story: a white female coworker was telling me about a foster child she had. She describe the child's family as being "white trash."

As soon as she said that, I frowned and looked the other way. She apologized.

Was I "offended?" Somewhat, but my reaction was more out of envy. You see, she can say "white trash" around other middle class whites. Not only will no one be bothered, but they'd probably joining in on the "white trash" bashing.

Now, put me in a similar scenario among middle class blacks. Let the words "black trash" or anything to that effect come out of my mouth. I guarantee you, they will each take turns ripping me a new one. That, right there, is a big no-no in the black community. And it's also the reason why Sergeant Waters was portrayed as the villain.

If a white person wants to move forward, they're going to... without giving two shits what other white people are doing.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 01:43 PM
I liked Sergeant Waters. He actually had a self-consciousness that's lacking in the black community today. It's my understanding that there were more blacks who thought like him in his day, until the Civil Rights Era and "black unity" killed it.

Personally, I think "black unity" does more harm than good. It's basically a bus from Point A (despair) to Point B (greatness), that refuses to move until everyone gets onboard... while failing to realize that not everyone can, or will, get onboard. Still, the bus continues to wait. Me? I'd rather say, "fuck you, I'm walking then."

I really do think that individualism is what makes whites so much more mobile.

Interesting story: a white female coworker was telling me about a foster child she had. She describe the child's family as being "white trash."

As soon as she said that, I frowned and looked the other way. She apologized.

Was I "offended?" Somewhat, but my reaction was more out of envy. You see, she can say "white trash" around other middle class whites. Not only will no one be bothered, but they'd probably joining in on the "white trash" bashing.

Now, put me in a similar scenario among middle class blacks. Let the words "black trash" or anything to that effect come out of my mouth. I guarantee you, they will each take turns ripping me a new one. That, right there, is a big no-no in the black community. And it's also the reason why Sergeant Waters was portrayed as the villain.

If a white person wants to move forward, they're going to... without giving two shits what other white people are doing.

Priceless, is that bus analogy one of yours, or did you borrow it?

By the way, numerous conservative voices use the "rugged individualism" argument as what makes America a success story for so many people.

I do agree with your premise of individualism being a critical component to social mobility, pair that up with determination and one is a force to be reckoned with.

TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 01:52 PM
I liked Sergeant Waters. He actually had a self-consciousness that's lacking in the black community today. It's my understanding that there were more blacks who thought like him in his day, until the Civil Rights Era and "black unity" killed it.

Personally, I think "black unity" does more harm than good. It's basically a bus from Point A (despair) to Point B (greatness), that refuses to move until everyone gets onboard... while failing to realize that not everyone can, or will, get onboard. Still, the bus continues to wait. Me? I'd rather say, "fuck you, I'm walking then."

I really do think that individualism is what makes whites so much more mobile.

Interesting story: a white female coworker was telling me about a foster child she had. She describe the child's family as being "white trash."

As soon as she said that, I frowned and looked the other way. She apologized.

Was I "offended?" Somewhat, but my reaction was more out of envy. You see, she can say "white trash" around other middle class whites. Not only will no one be bothered, but they'd probably joining in on the "white trash" bashing.

Now, put me in a similar scenario among middle class blacks. Let the words "black trash" or anything to that effect come out of my mouth. I guarantee you, they will each take turns ripping me a new one. That, right there, is a big no-no in the black community. And it's also the reason why Sergeant Waters was portrayed as the villain.

If a white person wants to move forward, they're going to... without giving two shits what other white people are doing.

Very interesting post Rusty. I agree with AA about your bus analogy.

garhkal
06-16-2014, 07:17 PM
No one. That would just be stupid.

Actually I take that back. With a team name like the Fighting Whites some groups would be offended but not the ones you are intimating.

BTW: While I personally think it is mostly inflated indignity driven by an attempt to garner publicity I would agree that it is probably time to throw in the hat and change the name.

I disagree. The team has existed for 50+ years and never had anyone raise a stink. So why should they be forced to change their name now?

Rusty Jones
06-16-2014, 07:27 PM
Problem solved:

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/red+skins+helmet.jpg

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 07:53 PM
I disagree. The team has existed for 50+ years and never had anyone raise a stink. So why should they be forced to change their name now?

Exactly...and why should blacks be able to drink at our water fountains? How many years went by before there was an issue with that?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 08:01 PM
I disagree. The team has existed for 50+ years and never had anyone raise a stink. So why should they be forced to change their name now?

Are you wishing you could turn back the clock to live in an era when the white man ruled supreme?

Me thinks you just might.

TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 08:04 PM
I disagree. The team has existed for 50+ years and never had anyone raise a stink. So why should they be forced to change their name now?

Perhaps you are right but actually a stink has been raised and ongoing for several years. I don't agree with it and as I stated earlier believe the whole debacle to be inflated indignity driven by an attempt to garner publicity. At some point you either tell everyone to shut up and stop addressing the issue (and prepare to defend the decision in court and possible protests) or just change the name.

My gut agrees with you but the problem will not go away as things stand now. I think continued addressing of the protests just starts the clock all over again. Perhaps a compromise (I like the spear logo idea).

Two questions continue to resonate in my head.

Who knows.

Who really gives a frapping care.

I found this article interesting and sheds light on why I believe this is a manufactured scandal.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/


To relate back to the political correctness thread. Whatever decision is made a certain segment of the population will be pissed and offended. When is enough enough?

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 08:07 PM
Perhaps you are right but actually a stink has been raised and ongoing for several years.

I would agree. Pretty much from the time we gave them blankets covered in disease and stole all their land until now they haven't really been grateful.

Though they'll get the last laugh with their casino's. Talk about reparations.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 08:10 PM
Problem solved:

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/red+skins+helmet.jpg

Leave the Redskins helmet alone!

It's been that way for 50 years and nobody complained until now.

Just replace Hail to the Redskins with Pink Floyd's Waiting for the Worms.

Waiting for the Worms (Waters) 3:56

"Eins, zwei, drei, alle!"

Ooooh, you cannot reach me now
Ooooh, no matter how you try
Goodbye, cruel world, it's over
Walk on by.

Sitting in a bunker here behind my wall
Waiting for the worms to come.
In perfect isolation here behind my wall
Waiting for the worms to come.

We're {waiting to succeed} and going to convene outside Brixton
Town Hall where we're going to be...

Waiting to cut out the deadwood.
Waiting to clean up the city.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Waiting to put on a black shirt.
Waiting to weed out the weaklings.
Waiting to smash in their windows
And kick in their doors.
Waiting for the final solution
To strengthen the strain.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Waiting to turn on the showers
And fire the ovens.
Waiting for the queens and the coons
and the reds and the jews.
Waiting to follow the worms.

Would you like to see Britannia
Rule again, my friend?
All you have to do is follow the worms.
Would you like to send our colored cousins
Home again, my friend?

All you need to do is follow the worms.

The Worms will convene outside Brixton Bus Station. We'll be moving along at about 12 o'clock down Stockwell Road {.... ......} {Abbot's Road } {.....} twelve minutes to three we'll be moving along Lambeth Road towards Vauxhall Bridge. Now when we get to the other side of Vauxhall Bridge we're in Westminster {Borough } area. It's quite possible we may encounter some {.....} by the way we go. {... ..}."

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 08:14 PM
"Eins, zwei, drei, alle!"

Great copy and paste job Corny!...How do I know you copied it? Because the "i" is after "e" in "drei". You, being American, would have immediately reverted to "i" before "e" because there is no "c" and written "drie".

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 08:18 PM
Great copy and paste job Corny!...How do I know you copied it? Because the "i" is after "e" in "drei". You, being American, would have immediately reverted to "i" before "e" because there is no "c" and written "drie".

Seeing as they are Pink Floyd song lyrics, I admittedly copy and pasted them...

Great music to listen to while smoking pot, or so I am told....

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 08:22 PM
Seeing as they are Pink Floyd song lyrics, I admittedly copy and pasted them...

Great music to listen to while smoking pot, or so I am told....

Try watching "The Wall" while smoking pot (or eating 'shrooms). Or so I've heard.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 08:43 PM
Try watching "The Wall" while smoking pot (or eating 'shrooms). Or so I've heard.

Oh, if you want to try something really über cool while high, or so I've heard, try watching The Wizard of Oz, while listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.

Start the movie but turn the volume down, at the MGM lion's third roar start the Dark Side of the Moon...

There are numerous instances of the action in the movie corresponding to the music, really über trippy...

Measure Man
06-16-2014, 08:54 PM
I propose changing the name to:

The Washington Heroes

The uniforms will have military designs on them, maybe camo...with the collar being bordered in light blue with stars to look like the Medal of Honor. The helmets can contain the Armed Forces shields.

The pants will have a blood stripe down the sides.

As the team takes the field, Reveille will be played.

After each Touchdown, there will be a 21 Gun Salute...and the end of a victory, band will play taps as the opposing team walks off the field.

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 08:56 PM
Oh, if you want to try something really über cool while high, or so I've heard, try watching The Wizard of Oz, while listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.

Start the movie but turn the volume down, at the MGM lion's third roar start the Dark Side of the Moon...

There are numerous instances of the action in the movie corresponding to the music, really über trippy...

That's what I've heard, though Floyd claims it's not true and that nothing like that was intentional.

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 08:57 PM
I propose changing the name to:

The Washington Heroes

The uniforms will have military designs on them, maybe camo...with the collar being bordered in light blue with stars to look like the Medal of Honor. The helmets can contain the Armed Forces shields.

The pants will have a blood stripe down the sides.

As the team takes the field, Reveille will be played.

After each Touchdown, there will be a 21 Gun Salute...and the end of a victory, band will play taps as the opposing team walks off the field.

Dear God, no! Can you imagine the argument over ABUs or Multicam???

Measure Man
06-16-2014, 09:02 PM
Dear God, no! Can you imagine the argument over ABUs or Multicam???

Yeah, they could have a "new look" every other game to distract attention from why they fail to execute the plays...they could spend huge amounts of money on uniforms and equipment, fancy leer jets for the owner and coaches, then cut players to make-up for budget shortfalls...

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 09:46 PM
That's what I've heard, though Floyd claims it's not true and that nothing like that was intentional.

I have actually done it before, and although there are a couple of cool instances like Dorothy waking up in Oz to the alarm clocks in Time, and Scarecrow dancing during Brain Damage, it isn't really that impressive.

Measure Man
06-16-2014, 10:03 PM
I have actually done it before, and although there are a couple of cool instances like Dorothy waking up in Oz to the alarm clocks in Time, and Scarecrow dancing during Brain Damage, it isn't really that impressive.

I've heard that story, too, but have never watched it.

If it wasn't intentional...someone should actually do something similar with a classic movie.

I guess the hard part is making the song a hit before revealing the tie in with the movie.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 10:45 PM
I've heard that story, too, but have never watched it.

If it wasn't intentional...someone should actually do something similar with a classic movie.

I guess the hard part is making the song a hit before revealing the tie in with the movie.

A great idea for some corporate exec over at Sony, he could pitch the idea as being synergistic integration.

We thought of that without even staying at La Quinta.


http://youtu.be/BIIBUksrfwo

garhkal
06-17-2014, 12:39 AM
Are you wishing you could turn back the clock to live in an era when the white man ruled supreme?

Me thinks you just might.

Heck no. Just like i don't want to go back to where Apartite was ok in South africa. I just think that just cause someone may find offense to something (not harming anyone) like a team's name, should NOT be a reason to force that team to change their name. Or what else should we force name changes for?
How many schools have the name bulldogs, or tigers? Should they be forced to change their name cause of someone who is a member of PETA dislikes it/finds offense?
What of the Pirates or bucaneers? That name is associated with crime of the sea's. Should teams with that name be forced to change?


To relate back to the political correctness thread. Whatever decision is made a certain segment of the population will be pissed and offended. When is enough enough?

Exactly. When is a line drawn? Who's rights get stepped on to please whom?

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 03:43 PM
Well, looks like the name will have to change now:

Redskins Trademark Canceled by US Patent Office:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-washington-redskins-trademark-cancelled-20140618,0,1927895.story

Well, not have to, but I bet it will once they can not control, license and sell the image and name, exclusively (i.e. other people can sell Redskins merchandise without giving the team a cut)

That's some dirty pool, right there

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 04:42 PM
Well, looks like the name will have to change now:

Redskins Trademark Canceled by US Patent Office:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-washington-redskins-trademark-cancelled-20140618,0,1927895.story

Well, not have to, but I bet it will once they can not control, license and sell the image and name, exclusively (i.e. other people can sell Redskins merchandise without giving the team a cut)

That's some dirty pool, right there

Yeah, that's crap.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 05:02 PM
Well, looks like the name will have to change now:

Redskins Trademark Canceled by US Patent Office:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-washington-redskins-trademark-cancelled-20140618,0,1927895.story

Well, not have to, but I bet it will once they can not control, license and sell the image and name, exclusively (i.e. other people can sell Redskins merchandise without giving the team a cut)

That's some dirty pool, right there

It's currently under appeal, so it's not final. By the way, this has happened twice before - once in 2003, and again in 2009.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 05:28 PM
It's currently under appeal, so it's not final. By the way, this has happened twice before - once in 2003, and again in 2009.

Interesting...I don't remember that.

And I'm a Redskins fan!!

Edit add:


This isn’t the first time the Redskins have lost trademark protection for their name, this happened in 1999. The Redskins appealed and in 2003 the decision was reversed because the “finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence”. It was also alleged that those who complained simply waited too long to and they should have done so back in the 1960s… because, as we all know, those who publicly stood up to racism in that decade had no reason to fear any violent response, just ask Martin Luther King, Jr.

Three years after the original decision was reversed a younger group of Natives made a formal protest of the trademark plugging up that “you shoulda done it sooner” loophole with the fact they were not yet alive at the time of the original filing. Tricky. This 2006 protest is what resulted in the news we’re hearing today.

The Redskins lose six trademark filings in all and are surely preparing to file an appeal. During the appeal process the team retains their trademark protections, so don’t start printing those bumper stickers just yet.

From: http://news.sportslogos.net/2014/06/18/washington-redskins-stripped-of-trademark-protection/

So it actually happened in 1999...but the appeal was won in 2003.

And it was filed again in 2006...which is where this ruling came from.

garhkal
06-18-2014, 07:11 PM
Yeah, that's crap.

Damn skippy its a load of balony.

I wonder. If the owner just decided to say "Fine you don't want a washington redskins team any more, no problem. They are hereby shut down. Everyone fired, all buildings closed." what could they do to stop him? How much tax money would get lost?

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 07:18 PM
Damn skippy its a load of balony.

I wonder. If the owner just decided to say "Fine you don't want a washington redskins team any more, no problem. They are hereby shut down. Everyone fired, all buildings closed." what could they do to stop him? How much tax money would get lost?

The owner can't simply take his ball and go home. The only way he'd get rid of that team is by selling it, and whoever buys it would end up doing whatever was ordered in the first place.

Measure Man
06-18-2014, 07:30 PM
The owner can't simply take his ball and go home.

Why not?

I mean assuming he pays out any obligation on whatever contracts, etc.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 07:34 PM
Why not?

I mean assuming he pays out any obligation on whatever contracts, etc.

I don't know all the NFL regs and stuff when it comes to this I would imagine that if you can be forced to sell a team in the NBA because the other owners say so then there might be some pretty good restrictions on disolving an organization completely.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 07:37 PM
The owner can't simply take his ball and go home. The only way he'd get rid of that team is by selling it, and whoever buys it would end up doing whatever was ordered in the first place.

You are looking at this realistically, big mistake. What you need to do is look at it from the worldview of, "PC bastards are ruining everything! I want to pout and have a temper tantrum!"

If you use that worldview, then his comment makes perfect sense.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 07:40 PM
I don't know all the NFL regs and stuff when it comes to this I would imagine that if you can be forced to sell a team in the NBA because the other owners say so then there might be some pretty good restrictions on disolving an organization completely.

That's how I was looking at it. Even still, after he pays whatever he has to pay to the NFL; those assets would be used in order to stand up another team in order to replace the Redskins in the NFC East. They would HAVE to do that, or totally reorganize the NFL completely - so that each conference and region have the same number of teams.

garhkal
06-18-2014, 10:38 PM
Why not?

I mean assuming he pays out any obligation on whatever contracts, etc.

Exactly. Just shut it down. Not sell it off.

Chief_KO
06-19-2014, 02:38 AM
From Forbes magazine:
"The National Football League takes in more than $9.5 billion per year and is exempt from Federal taxes. As a nonprofit, it earns more than the Y, the Red Cross, Goodwill, the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities – yet it stands as one of the greatest profit-generating commercial advertising, entertainment and media enterprises ever created."

Rusty Jones
06-19-2014, 05:15 PM
Exactly. Just shut it down. Not sell it off.

If you owned a house in a neighborhood governed by an HOA, can you destroy the house if you don't want it anymore?

Why do you think that one can do the same with a team that belongs to a professional league?

Taking your ball and going home is not only childish tactic, but likely an impossible one.

For the sake of argument, even if it could be done, the team would have to be replaced with a new one in the NFC East - and, like it or not, this new team will be seen by everyone as the successor to the Redskins. The difference? The owner forfeits the money he could have made by selling the team, or simply keeping it and changing the name.

I noticed that it's usually conservatives that like it when big business uses "taking my ball and going home" tactic. What the fuck is up with that?

Rainmaker
06-19-2014, 05:40 PM
We would prefer "Fighting WASPs", then you can use the insect as a logo and no one would know... Just like Hooters using an Owl. No one is the wiser...

We already have that. They're called the "Patriots". The term is offensive to Liberals.

garhkal
06-19-2014, 09:16 PM
If you owned a house in a neighborhood governed by an HOA, can you destroy the house if you don't want it anymore?


But at least with HOA's you know they are there before moving in, and usually get a vote on whether one is put in place.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 12:35 PM
We already have that. They're called the "Patriots". The term is offensive to Liberals.

That's because conservatives hijacked the term and then proceeded to pervert it. We're just as patriotic as you are, the only problem is that using the word "patriot" to describe ourselves would mean that we have to associate ourselves with gun toting rednecks driving 30 year old pickup trucks covered in right wing bumper stickers. No can do.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 12:50 PM
...gun toting rednecks driving 30 year old pickup trucks covered in right wing bumper stickers. No can do.You say that like there's something wrong with it? Damn conservatives not spending all their money because the vehicle they have is still functional and, not only that, driving them while exercising their 1st and 2nd ammendment rights. Crazy bastards!

And I thought conservatives all purchased new gas guzzling vehicles every 6 months just to show how rich they are.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 12:53 PM
You say that like there's something wrong with it? Damn conservatives not spending all their money because the vehicle they have is still functional and, not only that, driving them while exercising their 1st and 2nd ammendment rights. Crazy bastards!

And I thought conservatives all purchased new gas guzzling vehicles every 6 months just to show how rich they are.

Or maybe they drive piece of shit vehicles because they're dirt poor rednecks. Nothing wrong with being poor, but at least know your place if you're poor... and poor conservatives, unfortunately, do not.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 01:02 PM
Now that the Redskins trademark has been cancelled by the US Patent Office, does that mean I can order a shipping container full of Redskins jerseys from China to sell in the parking lot of FedEx Field on game days?

Do I have to wait for the appeals process to be over?

There has to be a way for me to cash in on this.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 01:04 PM
Or maybe they drive piece of shit vehicles because they're dirt poor rednecks. Nothing wrong with being poor, but at least know your place if you're poor... and poor conservatives, unfortunately, do not.

So they are poor, they act like they are poor, they live in trailers, they drive old vehicles, and many of the "gun toters" hunt and kill animals that they actually eat. It sounds to me like they ARE acting like they know "their place". I mean, they could be out buying $300 dollar shoes and paying for a $200 a month cell phone bill.

And I'm still not sure how being poor should exclude someone from being a conservative.

TJMAC77SP
06-20-2014, 01:12 PM
Or maybe they drive piece of shit vehicles because they're dirt poor rednecks. Nothing wrong with being poor, but at least know your place if you're poor... and poor conservatives, unfortunately, do not.

I am going to save this post for a rainy day. It may appear with a word of two changed but the message will remain the same.

Rusty, you stepped into it here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a "gun toting redneck(s) driving 30 year old pickup trucks covered in right wing bumper stickers" anymore than driving a hybrid car with alternative energy stickers, Obama/Biden - Yes We Can, and Coexist bumper stickers.

'Merica...............aint'it fuckin' great ?!?!?!

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 01:14 PM
Or maybe they drive piece of shit vehicles because they're dirt poor rednecks. Nothing wrong with being poor, but at least know your place if you're poor... and poor conservatives, unfortunately, do not.

Because they are so dumb, they have been bamboozled into thinking they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Why just the other day, I was at a traffic light in the back of my limousine, and a redneck in a dilapidated truck asked me if I had any Grey Poupon mustard.

Fucking morons, I really wish they'd learn that they are nothing more than an exploited proletariat.

hustonj
06-20-2014, 01:26 PM
but at least know your place

Short of violating the rights of others (including the property rights which are the source of private clubs' exclusivity options), how do you define ANYBODY's "place" in America?

Freedoms of movement and association don't support much in the way of discrimination on that point, do they?

You'll note I dropped all references from your post to a specific group. The group is not relevant to my response.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 02:23 PM
So they are poor, they act like they are poor, they live in trailers, they drive old vehicles, and many of the "gun toters" hunt and kill animals that they actually eat. It sounds to me like they ARE acting like they know "their place". I mean, they could be out buying $300 dollar shoes and paying for a $200 a month cell phone bill.

About a year ago, I was driving down the street and came up on an old piece of shit minivan, that looked like it was about to fall apart and barely passed inspection, and probably won't next time up. All these conservative bumper stickers on the back. One stood out. It said "Your fair share is not in my wallet."

Curious, I pulled up and looked over into the drivers side. Turned out to be a middle aged woman with missing teeth wearing a torn up t-shirt?

MY fair share is not in your wallet? Damn right, it's not! Bitch, YOUR fair share isn't even in your wallet!


And I'm still not sure how being poor should exclude someone from being a conservative.

Because to vote accordingly would be against their own economic best interest.

Just like the LBJ quote I gave you the other day:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man,
he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you.”

Describes this woman perfectly. And poor conservatives in general.



I am going to save this post for a rainy day. It may appear with a word of two changed but the message will remain the same.

Rusty, you stepped into it here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a "gun toting redneck(s) driving 30 year old pickup trucks covered in right wing bumper stickers" anymore than driving a hybrid car with alternative energy stickers, Obama/Biden - Yes We Can, and Coexist bumper stickers.

'Merica...............aint'it fuckin' great ?!?!?!

Maybe, maybe not. But these days, that's what the word "patriot" is associated with. Because people like that hijacked the word.


Short of violating the rights of others (including the property rights which are the source of private clubs' exclusivity options), how do you define ANYBODY's "place" in America?

Freedoms of movement and association don't support much in the way of discrimination on that point, do they?

You'll note I dropped all references from your post to a specific group. The group is not relevant to my response.

Refer to my previous posts. They vote against their own economic best interests, because they're too stupid to know that they're actually hurt by what they vote for. They think they're rich enough to benefit from conservative economic policy.

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 02:28 PM
Now that the Redskins trademark has been cancelled by the US Patent Office, does that mean I can order a shipping container full of Redskins jerseys from China to sell in the parking lot of FedEx Field on game days?

Do I have to wait for the appeals process to be over?

There has to be a way for me to cash in on this.

You have to wait for the appeal...the trademark remains in effect pending appeal.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 02:36 PM
You have to wait for the appeal...the trademark remains in effect pending appeal.

As much as I'd hate to see the Redskins name go, I think that they may as well just go ahead and change it. They've been ducking and dodging this for awhile now, and they're not going to be able to keep it up forever.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 02:44 PM
About a year ago, I was driving down the street and came up on an old piece of shit minivan, that looked like it was about to fall apart and barely passed inspection, and probably won't next time up. All these conservative bumper stickers on the back. One stood out. It said "Your fair share is not in my wallet."

Curious, I pulled up and looked over into the drivers side. Turned out to be a middle aged woman with missing teeth wearing a torn up t-shirt?

MY fair share is not in your wallet? Damn right, it's not! Bitch, YOUR fair share isn't even in your wallet! Maybe she felt she was getting her fair share. One doesn't have to be well off to want to keep what they earn.


Because to vote accordingly would be against their own economic best interest.

Just like the LBJ quote I gave you the other day:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man,
he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you.”

Describes this woman perfectly. And poor conservatives in general. Again, it depends. If one feels that the best way for the economy to get better is by following the conservative plans then they are going to vote for a conservative. You seem to be hinting that poor people should vote democrat because they are more likely to get hand-outs. The differing views, whether right or wrong, is that fiscal liberals will put more money in your pocket through tax dollars and that fiscal conservatives will put more money in your pocket through a better economy. Not agreeing or disagreeing either way, but it's not always a belief that "I can be rich like them." Sometimes it's just "They will give me the best opportunity to improve, or maintain, my quality of life".





Maybe, maybe not. But these days, that's what the word "patriot" is associated with. Because people like that hijacked the word. I'll agree with that. I don't like how people who speak out against war are considered unpatriotic. Anybody who wants what they think is best for the country is patriotic.




Refer to my previous posts. They vote against their own economic best interests, because they're too stupid to know that they're actually hurt by what they vote for. They think they're rich enough to benefit from conservative economic policy.Either that or they think they aren't rich enough or poor enough, so will be hurt by the liberal economic policy.

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 02:45 PM
As much as I'd hate to see the Redskins name go, I think that they may as well just go ahead and change it. They've been ducking and dodging this for awhile now, and they're not going to be able to keep it up forever.

That was kind of my thoughts...i think they're eventually going to lose, so the sooner they come with a new name, the sooner they can move on.

IIRC there already have been newspapers and TV stations that will NOT use the term "Redskins"...always referring to them simply as "Washington"

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 02:50 PM
I'm curious as to how long it will be before the Vancouver Canucks are forced to change their name. Even though "Canuck" is thought of as a term of endearment, the name is offensive to French Canadians. So in Vancouver, where the team is, the term is fine and most of Canada have no issue. However, on the East side, it's not a well liked term.

It was a term created by Americans and is offensive to an entire culture. I'm wondering why nobody has raised a stink. Is it because both "British" Canadians and French Canadians are white?

edit: Yankee is also derogatory...and what about Saints? Why should the players on the team have to be exposed to Christian beliefs like that?

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 03:10 PM
Yankee is also derogatory...

The funny thing about Yankee is that the people using it think it's derogatory, but the targets of it do not.

If someone calls us Yank or Yankee, though they might mean that as an insult...we're just like "yeah...I'm from the Northeast and proud of it."

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 03:11 PM
About a year ago, I was driving down the street and came up on an old piece of shit minivan, that looked like it was about to fall apart and barely passed inspection, and probably won't next time up. All these conservative bumper stickers on the back. One stood out. It said "Your fair share is not in my wallet."

Curious, I pulled up and looked over into the drivers side. Turned out to be a middle aged woman with missing teeth wearing a torn up t-shirt?

MY fair share is not in your wallet? Damn right, it's not! Bitch, YOUR fair share isn't even in your wallet!



Because to vote accordingly would be against their own economic best interest.

Just like the LBJ quote I gave you the other day:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man,
he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you.”

Describes this woman perfectly. And poor conservatives in general.




Maybe, maybe not. But these days, that's what the word "patriot" is associated with. Because people like that hijacked the word.



Refer to my previous posts. They vote against their own economic best interests, because they're too stupid to know that they're actually hurt by what they vote for. They think they're rich enough to benefit from conservative economic policy.



From the 1993 film Gettysburg:


Lieutenant Thomas D. Chamberlain: I don't mean no disrespect to you fighting men, but sometimes I can't help but figure... why you fightin' this war?

Confederate prisoner: Why are you?

Lieutenant Thomas D. Chamberlain: To free the slaves, of course. And preserve the Union.

Confederate prisoner: I don't know about other folk, but I ain't fighting for no darkies one way or the other. I'm fightin' for my rights. All of us here, that's what we're fighting for.
[pronounces it 'rats']

Lieutenant Thomas D. Chamberlain: Your what?

Confederate prisoner: For our rights. The right to live my life like I see fit.

I've got to agree with you to a certain extent Rusty, what you are saying is true in so many cases.

I've traced my family history back on both sides of my family and found that my mother's side of the family, pre-Civil War, owned a big plantation and had many slaves. They lost most of their fortune in the war, but kept a good bit of land, and prospered again on a much smaller scale, post war.

I found only one relative from that side of the family that fought for the Confederacy.

On my father's side, I found five relatives that fought for the Confederacy. All of them were from the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia, owned very small amounts of land, and no slaves.

Only one of them survived the war, and went back to the exact same kind of life he had before the war.

Why did all those poor mountain boys fight and die for the Confederacy?

It doesn't make any sense to me, unless I consider that they fought because they thought their way of life was in jeopardy, but it clearly wasn't.

Maybe they fought because they thought it was adventurous, or for pride, or they wanted to prove themselves in combat?

Who knows?

They clearly were fighting for someone else's economic prosperity, and usually it was for families that ultimately despised them as crackers from the mountains.

I have a very hard time understanding it.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 03:15 PM
The funny thing about Yankee is that the people using it think it's derogatory, but the targets of it do not.

If someone calls us Yank or Yankee, though they might mean that as an insult...we're just like "yeah...I'm from the Northeast and proud of it."

In the Anglosphere outside of the US, "yankee" refers to ALL Americans. So I really don't see this team's name being in danger.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 03:23 PM
You know what team in the NFL needs to change their name? The Texans. The Rockets and the Astros have space-related names, so the football team needs one too. I propose the Houston Moonwalkers. On the helmet, there would be a silhouette of Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk.

Measure Man
06-20-2014, 03:28 PM
In the Anglosphere outside of the US, "yankee" refers to ALL Americans. So I really don't see this team's name being in danger.

right...although, I think they generally say "Yank" not "Yankee"...

but again...even if the user intends it as an insult, I don't know anyone who would be insulted by it.

SomeRandomGuy
06-20-2014, 03:36 PM
In my hometown we have a Mexican fast food restaurant called "Taco Gringos" I find it kind of funny. From what I understand the word Gringo to describe an American is really not much different than Redskin to describe an Indian. The funny thing is no one will ever ask Taco Gringos to change their name because white people don't get offended by dumb shit like that. I have pondered the idea of opening a burger joint in Mexico and calling it "Wetback Burgers" though. Same thing in reverse right?

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 03:41 PM
In my hometown we have a Mexican fast food restaurant called "Taco Gringos" I find it kind of funny. From what I understand the word Gringo to describe an American is really not much different than Redskin to describe an Indian. The funny thing is no one will ever ask Taco Gringos to change their name because white people don't get offended by dumb shit like that. I have pondered the idea of opening a burger joint in Mexico and calling it "Wetback Burgers" though. Same thing in reverse right?

No, not the same thing. "Wetback" is used spefically to refer to illegals in the US. So, technically, there's no such thing as a wetback in Mexico.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 03:44 PM
Just thought about it... here in Norfolk, there's a restaurant called "Cracker's" in the Riverview area on Granby Street. Of course, "cracker" is a much more ambiguous word than "wetback" or "gringo," but thought it was worth mentioning.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 04:38 PM
Just thought about it... here in Norfolk, there's a restaurant called "Cracker's" in the Riverview area on Granby Street. Of course, "cracker" is a much more ambiguous word than "wetback" or "gringo," but thought it was worth mentioning.

What's funny is that there are several words used that are supposed to be derogatory but aren't. Cracker is one of them. I really can't think of any derogatory words relating to whites that I find offensive. That must be one of the benefits of white privilege.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 05:59 PM
What's funny is that there are several words used that are supposed to be derogatory but aren't. Cracker is one of them. I really can't think of any derogatory words relating to whites that I find offensive. That must be one of the benefits of white privilege.

You are totally impervious to mere words? Oddly enough, I'll agree with you on that, but only because of a technicality.

It is the context that the word is used in that offends, and not the word itself.

I could pick any word from the dictionary at random and turn it into a taunt, and if given enough time, I could completely change the meaning of it across our culture.

To quote Penn Gillette, "The words don't define the message, it is the message that defines the message."

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 07:07 PM
Maybe she felt she was getting her fair share. One doesn't have to be well off to want to keep what they earn.

You missed the point. The problem is that she's delusional enough to believe that she's on the benefitting end of crony capitalism, and that those those who are not are looking to HER as one of their oppressors. She's a fucking delusional idiot.


Again, it depends. If one feels that the best way for the economy to get better is by following the conservative plans then they are going to vote for a conservative. You seem to be hinting that poor people should vote democrat because they are more likely to get hand-outs. The differing views, whether right or wrong, is that fiscal liberals will put more money in your pocket through tax dollars and that fiscal conservatives will put more money in your pocket through a better economy. Not agreeing or disagreeing either way, but it's not always a belief that "I can be rich like them." Sometimes it's just "They will give me the best opportunity to improve, or maintain, my quality of life".

This sums up what's going on, right here:

http://www.lolwtfcomics.com/upload/uploads/1349960061.jpg


Either that or they think they aren't rich enough or poor enough, so will be hurt by the liberal economic policy.

...no, think they're rich enough to benefit from conservative economic policy. I see poor conservatives everyday referring to themselves as "taxpayers," when the only tax they've ever paid in their lives was sales tax. Mitt Romney even said it himself, and it's a true statement - 47% of Americans don't pay income tax. When they file, they're getting a refund that's equal to or greater than the amount of with holding for the year. Yet, poor conservatives in this situation think they're "taxpayers." GTFO!

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 07:36 PM
You are totally impervious to mere words? Oddly enough, I'll agree with you on that, but only because of a technicality.

It is the context that the word is used in that offends, and not the word itself.

I could pick any word from the dictionary at random and turn it into a taunt, and if given enough time, I could completely change the meaning of it across our culture.

To quote Penn Gillette, "The words don't define the message, it is the message that defines the message."

You are absolutely right. It's the message, not the words. Which is why the changing of the team name that is intended to be flattering is ridiculous. However, PC has made it where it's no longer the intent, it's the word itself.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 07:40 PM
You missed the point. The problem is that she's delusional enough to believe that she's on the benefitting end of crony capitalism, and that those those who are not are looking to HER as one of their oppressors. She's a fucking delusional idiot.



This sums up what's going on, right here:

http://www.lolwtfcomics.com/upload/uploads/1349960061.jpg



...no, think they're rich enough to benefit from conservative economic policy. I see poor conservatives everyday referring to themselves as "taxpayers," when the only tax they've ever paid in their lives was sales tax. Mitt Romney even said it himself, and it's a true statement - 47% of Americans don't pay income tax. When they file, they're getting a refund that's equal to or greater than the amount of with holding for the year. Yet, poor conservatives in this situation think they're "taxpayers." GTFO!

You know what poor conservatives (white people) think about as much as I know what poor liberals (black people) think.

I do agree about the taxes, though. Nobody should ever get back more than they pay in. The government cannot sustain.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm not a taxpayer. If I pay my taxes, I am a taxpayer. If the government chooses to give it back to me it doesn't mean that I didn't pay my taxes. That's like saying I'm not a consumer if I buy an item for $20 dollars and get a $20 dollar mail in rebate with the item.

A non-taxpayer is someone who doesn't claim any income.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 07:56 PM
You know what poor conservatives (white people) think about as much as I know what poor liberals (black people) think.

I'm biracial, so I think I know a little something. Anyhow, what we both know is quite a lot more than you realize in both directions, believe it or not. Most conservates have correctly stated that most black Democrats aren't true liberals, outside of programs that are geared toward minorities. Some have even said it here (if I recall correctly, both Pullinteeth and WJ5 have stated this a few time), and never once have I ever tried to dispute it.


I do agree about the taxes, though. Nobody should ever get back more than they pay in. The government cannot sustain.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm not a taxpayer. If I pay my taxes, I am a taxpayer. If the government chooses to give it back to me it doesn't mean that I didn't pay my taxes. That's like saying I'm not a consumer if I buy an item for $20 dollars and get a $20 dollar mail in rebate with the item.

A non-taxpayer is someone who doesn't claim any income.

I hate semantics games with a passion, but this is one of the few times where I'll bite: "consumer" and "taxpayer" are not analagous words. One doesn't have to pay for anything in order to be a consumer. You merely need to "consume" the product (I put that word in parentheses, as I'm applying the word to nonconsumable goods as well).

However, when you get reimbursed, you didn't pay for anything. Even if you want to debate semantics, look at it this way: if you get everything or more than your with holdings, what are YOUR "tax dollars" being used for? They're being used to go back to YOUR bank account, so you can blow it all on electronics in March; or to pay the utility bills that you purposely fell back on in anticipation of the refund. They have no legitimate gripe on tax dollars being used on anything else.

garhkal
06-20-2014, 08:13 PM
As much as I'd hate to see the Redskins name go, I think that they may as well just go ahead and change it. They've been ducking and dodging this for awhile now, and they're not going to be able to keep it up forever.

I'd prefer they keep it, but it is looking more and more like everything is going against them in being able to do so.


I'm curious as to how long it will be before the Vancouver Canucks are forced to change their name. Even though "Canuck" is thought of as a term of endearment, the name is offensive to French Canadians. So in Vancouver, where the team is, the term is fine and most of Canada have no issue. However, on the East side, it's not a well liked term.

It was a term created by Americans and is offensive to an entire culture. I'm wondering why nobody has raised a stink. Is it because both "British" Canadians and French Canadians are white?

edit: Yankee is also derogatory...and what about Saints? Why should the players on the team have to be exposed to Christian beliefs like that?

Which is why i feel the redskins being forced to change their name is setting a bad precedent, in that it would now allow other groups to go after their 'hated team' to force them to change their names.


In my hometown we have a Mexican fast food restaurant called "Taco Gringos" I find it kind of funny. From what I understand the word Gringo to describe an American is really not much different than Redskin to describe an Indian. The funny thing is no one will ever ask Taco Gringos to change their name because white people don't get offended by dumb shit like that. I have pondered the idea of opening a burger joint in Mexico and calling it "Wetback Burgers" though. Same thing in reverse right?

I know some white people who do get offended by getting called gringo. BUT that we are white, is going to be a big negative if anyone ever did try getting it changed. In the minds of a lot of people i have talked to about 'offending/racism', whites have been doing it to others for so long, they should not be allowed to complain when others do it to them.


You are absolutely right. It's the message, not the words. Which is why the changing of the team name that is intended to be flattering is ridiculous. However, PC has made it where it's no longer the intent, it's the word itself.

Which to my POV should mean that if the WORD is what is offensive, then no one should be allowed to use it. But in the case of the N word, blacks seem to use it all the time as a form of camaraderie/friend ship, and in their music, with no offense taken. BUT heaven forbid a white guy (or asian/latino) say the same word in the same manner.

Rusty Jones
06-20-2014, 08:18 PM
Which to my POV should mean that if the WORD is what is offensive, then no one should be allowed to use it. But in the case of the N word, blacks seem to use it all the time as a form of camaraderie/friend ship, and in their music, with no offense taken. BUT heaven forbid a white guy (or asian/latino) say the same word in the same manner.

That depends. In places like New York, blacks generally don't mind Latinos using it so much.

Even outside of that... I can tell you with certainty that ANY non-black person who... may not be "racially" black, but is "culturally" black won't be given any trouble for saying it.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 09:13 PM
I hate semantics games with a passion, but this is one of the few times where I'll bite: "consumer" and "taxpayer" are not analagous words. One doesn't have to pay for anything in order to be a consumer. You merely need to "consume" the product (I put that word in parentheses, as I'm applying the word to nonconsumable goods as well).

However, when you get reimbursed, you didn't pay for anything. Even if you want to debate semantics, look at it this way: if you get everything or more than your with holdings, what are YOUR "tax dollars" being used for? They're being used to go back to YOUR bank account, so you can blow it all on electronics in March; or to pay the utility bills that you purposely fell back on in anticipation of the refund. They have no legitimate gripe on tax dollars being used on anything else.

Of course the two words aren't analogous, it was the best I could think of.

There is no doubt that I'm not paying for anything if I get all of my money back and that's why I'm for a system that taxes at a fixed rate with no refunds/deductions. We should all be taxpayers.

However, it's not my fault that I'm not a taxpayer. I'm paying my taxes and the government policies are giving it back. I'll tell you this, if I chose not to pay and file because I knew it was all going to be refunded then I would be a tax cheat. But I'll concede that I think we both understand each others point on this.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 09:17 PM
I know some white people who do get offended by getting called gringo. BUT that we are white, is going to be a big negative if anyone ever did try getting it changed. In the minds of a lot of people i have talked to about 'offending/racism', whites have been doing it to others for so long, they should not be allowed to complain when others do it to them. I usually agree on this sort of thing, but I personally think that the offense taken by whites with the use of those terms is the offense taken because they can't use similar terms.



Which to my POV should mean that if the WORD is what is offensive, then no one should be allowed to use it. But in the case of the N word, blacks seem to use it all the time as a form of camaraderie/friend ship, and in their music, with no offense taken. BUT heaven forbid a white guy (or asian/latino) say the same word in the same manner.[/QUOTE]

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 09:22 PM
Even outside of that... I can tell you with certainty that ANY non-black person who... may not be "racially" black, but is "culturally" black won't be given any trouble for saying it.

As long as they are around people who know/accept them, I'd assume? I mean, I can't see a white guy from a black culture going to another city and throwing it around without severe consequences.

Personally, there are few words I hate, and I think they are pretty commonly disliked. The "N" word and the "C" word. I wish they were out of the vocabulary of everyone completely, no matter the context.

Chief_KO
06-20-2014, 09:46 PM
Several years ago the NBA's franchise in D.C. (actually Maryland), changed their name from "Bullets" to "Wizards" to help promote a more safe, peacefull, non-violent community. Has that made a difference?

So if the NFL's franchise in D.C. (also in Maryland) changes their name from "Redskins" to _________ will that have any impact on improving the lives of Native Americans?

Or is both more of a "feel-good" move by those in power rather than actually do anything of substance to improve either situation???

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 09:58 PM
Several years ago the NBA's franchise in D.C. (actually Maryland), changed their name from "Bullets" to "Wizards" to help promote a more safe, peacefull, non-violent community. Has that made a difference?

So if the NFL's franchise in D.C. (also in Maryland) changes their name from "Redskins" to _________ will that have any impact on improving the lives of Native Americans?

Or is both more of a "feel-good" move by those in power rather than actually do anything of substance to improve either situation???

I watch a lot of movies and I'd say that it wasn't a very smart move because wizards always kill more people in their movies than bullets do.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-20-2014, 10:14 PM
Personally, there are few words I hate, and I think they are pretty commonly disliked. The "N" word and the "C" word. I wish they were out of the vocabulary of everyone completely, no matter the context.

I'll let you in on a little secret, I am actually a very powerful wizard, and I could easily grant your wish. However, my crystal ball tells me that that those two words would be quickly replaced by two more words.

Plus, you just said that shit about wizards killing more people than bullets. No wishes for you!

Chief_KO
06-20-2014, 10:16 PM
I'll let you in on a little secret, I am actually a very powerful wizard, and I could easily grant your wish. However, my crystal ball tells me that that those two words would be quickly replaced by two more words.

Plus, you just said that shit about wizards killing more people than bullets. No wishes for you!

Wizard fight!!!!!!!

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 10:56 PM
I'll let you in on a little secret, I am actually a very powerful wizard, and I could easily grant your wish. However, my crystal ball tells me that that those two words would be quickly replaced by two more words.

Plus, you just said that shit about wizards killing more people than bullets. No wishes for you!

Ummmm...for a Comm guy you don't know much about Wizards. They don't grant wishes...that's a genie. Crystal ball? Laughable...are you sure you weren't Vehicle Maintenance?

TJMAC77SP
06-21-2014, 02:56 AM
Maybe, maybe not. But these days, that's what the word "patriot" is associated with. Because people like that hijacked the word.

Not even a decent attempt at misdirection. Like I said, you will see that post again............

garhkal
06-21-2014, 05:07 AM
Several years ago the NBA's franchise in D.C. (actually Maryland), changed their name from "Bullets" to "Wizards" to help promote a more safe, peacefull, non-violent community. Has that made a difference?

So if the NFL's franchise in D.C. (also in Maryland) changes their name from "Redskins" to _________ will that have any impact on improving the lives of Native Americans?

Or is both more of a "feel-good" move by those in power rather than actually do anything of substance to improve either situation???

IMO it's a feel good move. Nothing more.

WILDJOKER5
06-21-2014, 05:42 PM
This sums up what's going on, right here:

http://www.lolwtfcomics.com/upload/uploads/1349960061.jpg


Yeah, that meme is almost honest. Kind of like this one.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t1.0-9/1512828_752430058113780_3569199920614844544_n.jpg

WILDJOKER5
06-21-2014, 05:56 PM
I like this one.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10440849_676692889067986_4591693646704099624_n.jpg

Rainmaker
06-23-2014, 08:58 PM
You missed the point. The problem is that she's delusional enough to believe that she's on the benefitting end of crony capitalism, and that those those who are not are looking to HER as one of their oppressors. She's a fucking delusional idiot.



This sums up what's going on, right here:

http://www.lolwtfcomics.com/upload/uploads/1349960061.jpg



...no, think they're rich enough to benefit from conservative economic policy. I see poor conservatives everyday referring to themselves as "taxpayers," when the only tax they've ever paid in their lives was sales tax. Mitt Romney even said it himself, and it's a true statement - 47% of Americans don't pay income tax. When they file, they're getting a refund that's equal to or greater than the amount of with holding for the year. Yet, poor conservatives in this situation think they're "taxpayers." GTFO!

Wrong. they pay Inflationary tax. caused by printing money to inflate the stock market (in which 80% of Americans have no stake). It's a tax every damn one of us pays, and it affects the poor and those fixed income the most. If inflation was still calculated the way it was in 1980, it would be running about 10% a year since the recession. At this rate that $17T dollar debt won't seem so bad in a few years. Man, You checked out the price of a block of cheese lately Holmes?

UH1FE
06-23-2014, 09:25 PM
Since people want the redskins to change their name then may be someone should call the high school on the Navajo indian reservation. Their maskot is redskin........

garhkal
06-24-2014, 04:44 AM
Ah, but since they ARE native americans, its just like blacks calling each other the N word. Its ok.

Rusty Jones
06-24-2014, 12:21 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t1.0-9/1512828_752430058113780_3569199920614844544_n.jpg

Funny, because the poorest states in the country are... red states!

And Charles Barkley became Democrat almost 20 years ago.

Chief_KO
06-24-2014, 12:43 PM
To avoid offending anyone, effective immediately all teams will simply be referred to by their host city or state (or school) and the sport played:

ex. Los Angeles National League Baseballers, Boston National League Hockeyplayers, Chicago National League Footballers, etc.

garhkal
06-24-2014, 02:01 PM
How's about cutting their wages so as not to offend the poor!

sandsjames
06-24-2014, 04:16 PM
Funny, because the poorest states in the country are... red states!

And Charles Barkley became Democrat almost 20 years ago.


Either way, let's be honest. The poor will remain poor, no matter who's in charge, just as the rich will remain rich. Blue state, red state, who give's a shit? They are both happy to keep you poor...they just do it in different ways. One gives you no motivation to get out of the cellar and the other gives you no help to get out of the cellar.

Rusty Jones
06-24-2014, 04:30 PM
Either way, let's be honest. The poor will remain poor, no matter who's in charge, just as the rich will remain rich. Blue state, red state, who give's a shit? They are both happy to keep you poor...they just do it in different ways. One gives you no motivation to get out of the cellar and the other gives you no help to get out of the cellar.

Of course, outside of a communist society, SOMEBODY has to be poor. I get that. However, the question is about that rock-bottom standard of living, and where the line should be drawn. And THAT is where the parties differ.

By the way... identifying with a particular party is not beneath anyone. I wish people with that bullshit, as if their superior intellect transcends such "petty" things as political affiliation.

Measure Man
06-24-2014, 04:40 PM
Either way, let's be honest. The poor will remain poor, no matter who's in charge, just as the rich will remain rich. Blue state, red state, who give's a shit? They are both happy to keep you poor...they just do it in different ways. One gives you no motivation to get out of the cellar and the other gives you no help to get out of the cellar.

Seems to me just about every politician out there was raised poor...at least that's what they claim.

I do sometimes wonder how some Republicans come to grips with that fact...given that they often associate being poor with being lazy. Are they insinuating that their parents were lazy?


Of course, outside of a communist society, SOMEBODY has to be poor. I get that. However, the question is about that rock-bottom standard of living, and where the line should be drawn. And THAT is where the parties differ.

By the way... identifying with a particular party is not beneath anyone. I wish people with that bullshit, as if their superior intellect transcends such "petty" things as political affiliation.

I wouldn't say that it's "beneath me"...but I disavow any party membership mostly because there is so much about either party that I disagree with...and once you declare "I am a Republican/Democrat"...there are a lot of baggage that goes along with that...

Plus..as an independent, I feel candidates from either party can "win me over" if they make sense.

BENDER56
06-24-2014, 05:17 PM
By the way... identifying with a particular party is not beneath anyone. I wish people with that bullshit, as if their superior intellect transcends such "petty" things as political affiliation.

Not sure I see my lack of party affiliation as a sign of a superior intellect. Although I'm sure some non-affiliateds do. Hell, that's just human nature -- "My kind is better than your kind!" I'm sure many Ds and Rs think the same way.

I don't understand party affiliation because it seems like such an unnecessary constraint on one's beliefs. I'm not even sure what benefits party affiliation confers that offsets that. Maybe some people are just joiners and can't handle not belonging to something bigger than themselves. I realize that just because one is a D or an R (... or an L, or any others ...) doesn't mean that he is in lockstep agreement with every plank in his party's platform. But if that's the case, what's the point of being a member to begin with. Oh, wait ... power. Yeah ... power in numbers. And, of course, the always-present us-versus-them of human nature.

Anyway, Gallup has been tracking Americans' self-professed party affiliation for many years. As of last week it was:

R: 24%
D: 28%
Ind:46%

And it has been like this -- independents outnumbering each other party -- for most of the last 10 years.

Link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

sandsjames
06-24-2014, 06:42 PM
Not sure I see my lack of party affiliation as a sign of a superior intellect. Although I'm sure some non-affiliateds do. Hell, that's just human nature -- "My kind is better than your kind!" I'm sure many Ds and Rs think the same way.

I don't understand party affiliation because it seems like such an unnecessary constraint on one's beliefs. I'm not even sure what benefits party affiliation confers that offsets that. Maybe some people are just joiners and can't handle not belonging to something bigger than themselves. I realize that just because one is a D or an R (... or an L, or any others ...) doesn't mean that he is in lockstep agreement with every plank in his party's platform. But if that's the case, what's the point of being a member to begin with. Oh, wait ... power. Yeah ... power in numbers. And, of course, the always-present us-versus-them of human nature.

Anyway, Gallup has been tracking Americans' self-professed party affiliation for many years. As of last week it was:

R: 24%
D: 28%
Ind:46%

And it has been like this -- independents outnumbering each other party -- for most of the last 10 years.

Link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

Exactly...if I'm a Democrat, I'm immediately associated with pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-union, etc, while if I'm a Republican, I'm associated with the opposite.

There used to be a day when you could be socially conservative and fiscally liberal (or the opposite). Now someone who falls into this category is pretty much screwed if they are running for office. They are either "too liberal" to be a Republican or "too conservative" to be a Democrat.

This biggest problem, I think, is that the words have become synonymous. A democrat is automatically liberal and a republican is automatically conservative. In reality, that's just not true...until it comes to running for office.

WILDJOKER5
06-24-2014, 07:10 PM
Funny, because the poorest states in the country are... red states!

And Charles Barkley became Democrat almost 20 years ago.

36 out of the 39 poorest HOR distiricts are blue. Just because GA, MS, AL etc are red together, their cities like ATL, Jackson, Mongomery are much larger and poorer and happen to be blue. Keep throwing that nonsense of "Red states being poor" while you ignore the fact that its the BLUE cities in those states which make them "poor".

WILDJOKER5
06-24-2014, 07:14 PM
Of course, outside of a communist society, SOMEBODY has to be poor. I get that. However, the question is about that rock-bottom standard of living, and where the line should be drawn. And THAT is where the parties differ.I am sure you speak of the fictional communist society. The leaders of every communist nation has always been well off compared to those who are poor.

WILDJOKER5
06-24-2014, 07:16 PM
I wouldn't say that it's "beneath me"...but I disavow any party membership mostly because there is so much about either party that I disagree with...and once you declare "I am a Republican/Democrat"...there are a lot of baggage that goes along with that...

Plus..as an independent, I feel candidates from either party can "win me over" if they make sense.

But once you speak against one party beliefs, you are already labeled as "the opposite". You get tagged with that label even if you are independent. I am registered independent, guess what most of you think of me as.

Rusty Jones
06-24-2014, 07:29 PM
I am sure you speak of the fictional communist society. The leaders of every communist nation has always been well off compared to those who are poor.

To some extent, that needs to be the case. One of the arguments for monarchies compared to democracies, for example, is that the wealth of royalty makes them less corruptable than elected politicians. It makes sense, even outside of monarchies - even in democracies, or any other form of government - that those who make laws for citizens under their jurisdiction be compensated in such a way, that the fewest possible number of people are capable of being able to offer up enough money to get them to do something unethical.


36 out of the 39 poorest HOR distiricts are blue. Just because GA, MS, AL etc are red together, their cities like ATL, Jackson, Mongomery are much larger and poorer and happen to be blue. Keep throwing that nonsense of "Red states being poor" while you ignore the fact that its the BLUE cities in those states which make them "poor".

Yet, when you put it all together, they've got Republican governors and Republican electoral votes.


But once you speak against one party beliefs, you are already labeled as "the opposite". You get tagged with that label even if you are independent. I am registered independent, guess what most of you think of me as.

Yeah, because you never speak against the GOP; unless it's to favor Libertarians or whoever the cool new non-GOP conservative is.

garhkal
06-24-2014, 07:29 PM
Of course, outside of a communist society, SOMEBODY has to be poor. I get that. However, the question is about that rock-bottom standard of living, and where the line should be drawn. And THAT is where the parties differ.

By the way... identifying with a particular party is not beneath anyone. I wish people with that bullshit, as if their superior intellect transcends such "petty" things as political affiliation.

Can i identify with the apple pie eating party? :D

WILDJOKER5
06-24-2014, 07:40 PM
To some extent, that needs to be the case. One of the arguments for monarchies compared to democracies, for example, is that the wealth of royalty makes them less corruptable than elected politicians. It makes sense, even outside of monarchies - even in democracies, or any other form of government - that those who make laws for citizens under their jurisdiction be compensated in such a way, that the fewest possible number of people are capable of being able to offer up enough money to get them to do something unethical.You know liberalism started because people wanted to get away from monocharies right?


Yet, when you put it all together, they've got Republican governors and Republican electoral votes.What does that have anything to do with the cities who are ran by democratic Mayors? You can have the best governor of GA getting high marks for their schools all over the state, but then you have ATL who has to cheat on stardized tests. And btw, ATL spent almost twice as much per student than anywhere else in the state. Believe it or not, most poor is still governed by the lowest level of government. Just because the POTUS is democrat, doesnt make the rest of the states blue. Nither does having a red governor make every city red. Yes the governor can make policies to hinder job growth or run current businesses out of the state, but if we are talking about the actual poor who get the welfare, they live under demcratic officials.


Yeah, because you never speak against the GOP; unless it's to favor Libertarians or whoever the cool new non-GOP conservative is.
So me agreeing with legalizing pot or getting marriage accessable for everyone is just me going against the GOP for libertarian causes? Well, that may be, but if you are trying to get one thing past and one thing alone without tons of "pork" stuffed in, wouldnt you want me as an ally on those issues I agree with? True, there is very little I agree with the left on, doesnt mean there isnt some overlap though.

BENDER56
06-24-2014, 08:07 PM
This biggest problem, I think, is that the words have become synonymous. A democrat is automatically liberal and a republican is automatically conservative. In reality, that's just not true...until it comes to running for office.

Unfortunately, it's more true today than ever. A recent Pew Research Center study shows that, "92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican."

More here: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Measure Man
06-24-2014, 08:13 PM
There used to be a day when you could be socially conservative and fiscally liberal (or the opposite). Now someone who falls into this category is pretty much screwed if they are running for office. They are either "too liberal" to be a Republican or "too conservative" to be a Democrat.

Agreed. It seems the far poles of both parties control the primary process. Another reason I can't align with either one.


This biggest problem, I think, is that the words have become synonymous. A democrat is automatically liberal and a republican is automatically conservative. In reality, that's just not true...until it comes to running for office.

Yes...and it is all very polarized. The "base" of each party thinks of the other as "the enemy."

Our only hope is the growing Independents.

sandsjames
06-24-2014, 09:00 PM
Our only hope is the growing Independents.

You really think it's growing? Or does it just seem that way because there's more social media?

Also, I think the issue with the "Independent" label is it really isn't a "party". You can have 100 Independent's and they all back different issues. It's hard to get support for a party that isn't really a party. It's pretty much just stating that one isn't a Republican or Democrat.

Rainmaker
06-24-2014, 09:07 PM
Unfortunately, it's more true today than ever. A recent Pew Research Center study shows that, "92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican."

More here: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Get this straight. The Global Corporations run this red team/blue team shit show. Rusty is right about one thing, the GOP does not represent the interests of White people. That's why all those rayciss crackers voted for a "change" (to their own detriment) twice. Remember W's "compassionate conservatism"? It was progressivism. 30 years of open border policies have allowed the country to be overrun by illegals against the will of the citizens. For a blue collar employee (unless you work for the federal government) your labor is worth what a virtual third world slave would do the job for. At least the democrats are open about their intentions. There is no conservative alternative. That's why the GOP will soon go the way of the do do. Until then Rainmaker be voting for Mick E. Mouse. Thank you Federal Reserve and Federal Government of these United States. CANKLES 2016!!!

Measure Man
06-24-2014, 10:53 PM
You really think it's growing? Or does it just seem that way because there's more social media?

Yes, I think the percentage of people who opt out of either party is growing.


Also, I think the issue with the "Independent" label is it really isn't a "party". You can have 100 Independent's and they all back different issues. It's hard to get support for a party that isn't really a party. It's pretty much just stating that one isn't a Republican or Democrat.

Well, I don't think the idea to "get all the Independents together as a party"...Independents But, if it's getting to the point where there are more of us than there are of party guys...then the party guys who may be running might have to consider and react according to what it is the majority of Independents want...which I think tends to be in the moderate section of things.

Of course the "party bases" will say "Oh, the GOP is failing not because its not moderate enough, but because it is not conservative enough"...and "The Democrats need to stay true to the liberal ideal..." or whtaever...but, I don't buy it...the moderate is moderate because that's where most people are.

My idea was still to start a "68%ers Party"...which is all of those within 1 standard deviation of the mean. Right now, I think both parties are being controlled by those outside of 2 standard deviations....the "5%ers"

BENDER56
06-24-2014, 10:54 PM
Also, I think the issue with the "Independent" label is it really isn't a "party". You can have 100 Independent's and they all back different issues. It's hard to get support for a party that isn't really a party. It's pretty much just stating that one isn't a Republican or Democrat.

That's why I prefer the term "unaffiliated" instead of "independent".

Also, there actually is a political party called the Independent American Party. Not that many people have heard of them, but avoiding confusion with them is another reason for us independents to refer to ourselves as "unaffiliated".

Rainmaker
06-25-2014, 02:20 PM
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/06/23/nearly-half-of-detroit-water-customers-cant-pay-their-bill/

Das Raciss.

BENDER56
06-25-2014, 03:13 PM
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/06/23/nearly-half-of-detroit-water-customers-cant-pay-their-bill/

Das Raciss.

Not sure what this is even doing here and I didn't read the article you linked to -- I couldn't get past this first sentence: "It’s a basic human right: water."

Really? I have a right to water?! Then why am I paying a water bill?

WT flying F? Do people even know the meaning of words anymore?

Rusty Jones
06-25-2014, 03:56 PM
Not sure what this is even doing here and I didn't read the article you linked to -- I couldn't get past this first sentence: "It’s a basic human right: water."

Really? I have a right to water?! Then why am I paying a water bill?

WT flying F? Do people even know the meaning of words anymore?

Well, Rainmaker is trying to take a shot at black people... no suprise there. The part that he's ignoring about this story, is the fact that local commercial entities serviced by the same water company are years behind on water bills, and owe hundreds of millions. Yet, they continue to receive services while individual people who are two months behind and owe $150 get theirs turned off.

Rainmaker
06-25-2014, 04:56 PM
Well, Rainmaker is trying to take a shot at black people... no suprise there. The part that he's ignoring about this story, is the fact that local commercial entities serviced by the same water company are years behind on water bills, and owe hundreds of millions. Yet, they continue to receive services while individual people who are two months behind and owe $150 get theirs turned off.

How do you know what part of the story Rainmaker's ignoring? Thanks for demonstrating your open-minded, non-judgmental egalitarianism for us yet again Rusty.
Rainmaker's point is this: Our manufacturing base has been Destroyed. After a Tax Payer bailout, Automakers are raking in record profits. Yet, Detroit, The Arsenal of Democracy and Symbol of American Strength has been reduced to calling for UN intervention to provide water. What would we have them do? Force out whatever remaining commercial tax base is left in that shithole of a town? How do you charge $3000 a year property tax on a house you can't sell for a $1. How does a business turn a profit when 47% of the available labor pool is illiterate? Thank Black Power Socialists like Coleman Young and their liberal white handler's for driving out the Middle Class whites. Thank thousands of gang banging thugs (who can't be criticized) for driving out the middle class blacks that fled the city. Detroit looks like a perfect spot for a "dreamer" refugee camp. Get off my Lawn.

garhkal
06-25-2014, 07:48 PM
Not sure what this is even doing here and I didn't read the article you linked to -- I couldn't get past this first sentence: "It’s a basic human right: water."

Really? I have a right to water?! Then why am I paying a water bill?

WT flying F? Do people even know the meaning of words anymore?

That's what i would like to know myself. If something is a "Basic human right" why do we have to pay for it?

But i'd like to know why people are going to the UN to get this resolved.

Rusty Jones
06-25-2014, 08:01 PM
That's what i would like to know myself. If something is a "Basic human right" why do we have to pay for it?

But i'd like to know why people are going to the UN to get this resolved.

I agree that basic utilities should be "free." Just make them a part of taxes. We all have to use the services anyway, right? So why should paying for them be an option?

But the problem is, people are afraid that that would be socialism or communism. And that because we get utilities paid for through taxes, that an American Holodomor is coming and, and anyone not affect by THAT is going to the gulag.

sandsjames
06-25-2014, 08:02 PM
That's what i would like to know myself. If something is a "Basic human right" why do we have to pay for it?

But i'd like to know why people are going to the UN to get this resolved.

I think people have really confused the line between a necessity and a right. A necessity is something I have to work to provide for my family and me. A right is something that is inherant.

And I agree with you...I'm curious about the whole UN thing myself.

Depending on how this works out, I may stop working knowing that I have a right to all the necessities of life that must be provided to me at no cost. Free food staples, free water, free housing, free guns...this is going to be awesome.

sandsjames
06-25-2014, 08:05 PM
I agree that basic utilities should be "free." Just make them a part of taxes. We all have to use the services anyway, right? So why should paying for them be an option? Are you kidding with this shit? You must be. How much water do I get? Who determines that? Is the tax payer going to pay for me to water my 6 acre yard? Or will I only get a set amount per family member? Will it be determined by someone else how often I can flush the toilet and do laundry? Or is it just a free for all? Open the taps and let them go.

You know what people did before there were utility companies? The drank out of wells, or streams, or whatever other water source they could find. There is no law against that. Nobody is stopping anyone from drinking all the water they want, or bathing in a lake.

Or is that water unhealthy? Cuz tap water is just as bad, so do we provide everyone bottled water?

Measure Man
06-25-2014, 08:20 PM
Not sure what this is even doing here and I didn't read the article you linked to -- I couldn't get past this first sentence: "It’s a basic human right: water."

Really? I have a right to water?! Then why am I paying a water bill?

WT flying F? Do people even know the meaning of words anymore?

What part of the meaning of the word "right" implies that it must be free?

Rainmaker
06-25-2014, 08:29 PM
I think people have really confused the line between a necessity and a right. A necessity is something I have to work to provide for my family and me. A right is something that is inherant.

And I agree with you...I'm curious about the whole UN thing myself.

Depending on how this works out, I may stop working knowing that I have a right to all the necessities of life that must be provided to me at no cost. Free food staples, free water, free housing, free guns...this is going to be awesome.

The constitution gives its citizens an unalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". You can have none of these without access to water.

Maybe former Mayor Kwame Killpatrick can make a call from jail to that white boy Kevin Costner from water world to sail through the war zone and get the helpless" victims" of white flight some H2O for their purple dranks

Rainmaker
06-25-2014, 08:46 PM
In all seriousness. This is no laughing matter. It's summertime. We got Global warming. It's Hot as hell out there.

Maybe Dennis Rodman could take a break from hangin out with Kim Jong- il and call up his ex girl friend Madonna to host a fund raising concert or cast a Kabbalist, Luciferian spell and just manifest them muhfuggas some water. NomSAYIN??

sandsjames
06-25-2014, 09:17 PM
The constitution gives its citizens an unalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". You can have none of these without access to water.

Maybe former Mayor Kwame Killpatrick can make a call from jail to that white boy Kevin Costner from water world to sail through the war zone and get the helpless" victims" of white flight some H2O for their purple dranks

There is access to water...find a freakin stream...nobody will stop people from doing that. You also cannot have life without food. Why do I pay for groceries?

And, as I've said before, you make some good points then lose all credibility with your "purple dranks" type comments.

Capt Alfredo
06-25-2014, 09:49 PM
There is access to water...find a freakin stream...nobody will stop people from doing that. You also cannot have life without food. Why do I pay for groceries?

And, as I've said before, you make some good points then lose all credibility with your "purple dranks" type comments.

I'm surprised the powers that be allow him to continually post his veiled racist schtick. It's gotten old.

sandsjames
06-25-2014, 09:53 PM
I'm surprised the powers that be allow him to continually post his veiled racist schtick. It's gotten old.

Kind of like PT God but even less funny.

BENDER56
06-26-2014, 12:36 AM
What part of the meaning of the word "right" implies that it must be free?

A right is something that is inherently ours to begin with. If something is truly a right, nobody else controls our access to it.

Rainmaker
06-26-2014, 03:02 AM
There is access to water...find a freakin stream...nobody will stop people from doing that. You also cannot have life without food. Why do I pay for groceries?

And, as I've said before, you make some good points then lose all credibility with your "purple dranks" type comments.

Says the compassionate conservative who'd have 300K residents wandering around Detroit's concrete jungle with baskets on their heads looking for a stream to fetch water.

garhkal
06-26-2014, 05:01 AM
Are you kidding with this shit? You must be. How much water do I get? Who determines that? Is the tax payer going to pay for me to water my 6 acre yard? Or will I only get a set amount per family member? Will it be determined by someone else how often I can flush the toilet and do laundry? Or is it just a free for all? Open the taps and let them go.


That's part n parcel of why i don't like the idea of things being considered a basic right and therefore everyone should get provided it. Who decides? How is it decided?

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 10:30 AM
That's part n parcel of why i don't like the idea of things being considered a basic right and therefore everyone should get provided it. Who decides? How is it decided?

Right...should I get provided, for free, with everything required to live? Should I get provided, for free, with everything that is a right? Free guns? Free land/house?

In addition, do we want government ran utilities? Is the government going to be the employer for farmers so that staple food items will be free?

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 12:02 PM
Are you kidding with this shit? You must be. How much water do I get? Who determines that? Is the tax payer going to pay for me to water my 6 acre yard? Or will I only get a set amount per family member? Will it be determined by someone else how often I can flush the toilet and do laundry? Or is it just a free for all? Open the taps and let them go.

You get as much as you want, of course. If you've got six acres of land to maintain, then it only stands to reason that you've got more money to tax... hence the use of the water to maintain that land is justified.

Think about it... all of the local plants and mills that use water, who ends up paying for it anyway? The consumer. That said... we all have to use it anyway, so paying for it shouldn't be optional.

Water may actually be cheaper if we went that route. De-privatize water, and profits will be a non-factor. As a result, taxpayers would only pay for water at the at-cost price.


You know what people did before there were utility companies? The drank out of wells, or streams, or whatever other water source they could find. There is no law against that. Nobody is stopping anyone from drinking all the water they want, or bathing in a lake.

Or is that water unhealthy? Cuz tap water is just as bad, so do we provide everyone bottled water?

There's no law against bathing in the lake? I won't get in trouble for indecent exposure? What if there's children bathing there too? Then what? We should drink water from rivers? Do what people in third world countries do and, as a result, get E. Coli and malaria and all of that other shit?

No thanks. And I'M the one must be kidding? Get the fuck outta here with this shit.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 02:54 PM
A right is something that is inherently ours to begin with. If something is truly a right, nobody else controls our access to it.

Right to bear arms?

Right to property?

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 03:09 PM
Right to bear arms? Nobody controls my access. I can pick up a stick/rock anytime I want. If there was no production of weapons, I'd still have ways to defend myself.


Right to property?Depends what you mean by property? Things? Land? House?

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 03:12 PM
There's no law against bathing in the lake? I won't get in trouble for indecent exposure? What if there's children bathing there too? Then what? We should drink water from rivers? Do what people in third world countries do and, as a result, get E. Coli and malaria and all of that other shit?

No thanks. And I'M the one must be kidding? Get the fuck outta here with this shit. A right is something you can have without anyone else providing you a service. Anything other than that is a privilege because it wouldn't be there without someone giving it to you. Seems like common sense to me.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 03:13 PM
Nobody controls my access. I can pick up a stick/rock anytime I want. If there was no production of weapons, I'd still have ways to defend myself.

I see. So, you're saying the Constitution allows the govt. to ban firearms since the people can still have rocks and sticks?


Depends what you mean by property? Things? Land? House?

Whatever it means in the Constitution. Which, I think, is all of that...none of which has to be provided for free.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 03:19 PM
I agree that basic utilities should be "free." Just make them a part of taxes. We all have to use the services anyway, right? So why should paying for them be an option?You are either extremely comical in this or very ignorant. "IT all should be free.....just pay taxes". BOL. It cant be "free" if you are paying taxes. And why should I pay "X" amount if I dont use that much? If I have a sprinkler system and my neighbors dont, does that mean they are paying for me to water my lawn daily? Seriously, socialism is the biggest joke mankind has ever developed.

But its the same thought as marriage licence. "Its a basic human right, that we need the government to tell us we can have....after we pay for it." Maybe marriage licences should just be part of taxes too. I mean, everyone gets married right?


But the problem is, people are afraid that that would be socialism or communism. And that because we get utilities paid for through taxes, that an American Holodomor is coming and, and anyone not affect by THAT is going to the gulag.At least this would explain those who back fining people for collecting rain water.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 03:20 PM
A right is something you can have without anyone else providing you a service. Anything other than that is a privilege because it wouldn't be there without someone giving it to you. Seems like common sense to me.

So public education is not a right then, let alone compulsory?

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 03:20 PM
A right is something you can have without anyone else providing you a service.

I really think you guys are reading too much into the definition of the word "right".

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 03:21 PM
Are you kidding with this shit? You must be. How much water do I get? Who determines that? Is the tax payer going to pay for me to water my 6 acre yard? Or will I only get a set amount per family member? Will it be determined by someone else how often I can flush the toilet and do laundry? Or is it just a free for all? Open the taps and let them go.

You know what people did before there were utility companies? The drank out of wells, or streams, or whatever other water source they could find. There is no law against that. Nobody is stopping anyone from drinking all the water they want, or bathing in a lake.

Or is that water unhealthy? Cuz tap water is just as bad, so do we provide everyone bottled water?

Well, there are states that fine collection of rain water, so there could be a law against providing for yourself some day.

Rainmaker
06-26-2014, 03:24 PM
I'm surprised the powers that be allow him to continually post his veiled racist schtick. It's gotten old.

Captain, Please define" Veiled Racist Shtick" What exactly does that mean to you? Why do you dislike every post you disagree with, or cry racism to the moderators, while at the same time never actually refuting anything Rainmaker says?

Let's talk about it. Now, Rainmaker has one simple question for you. Do you think White people owe you a living? Why or why not.

Rainmaker's said many time before, his opinion is that the differences in races (including IQ) are largely cultural. Perhaps, this is not going to change? All men are created in God's image, after that they have free will.

People need to let go of the diversity cultists LIE they've been sold, that the US has historically been Multi-cultural. It hasn't. The U.S. has always been multi-ethnic. But, with shared American values that came PRIMARILY out of Western Christendom. Which, in Rainmaker's opinion is a SUPERIOR CULTURE and NOT A SUPERIOR RACE. Rainmaker Concede it's a matter of opinion. But, A house divided cannot stand. Multiculturalism leads to anarchy. No matter how much the progressives want to tell you that we're all going to evolve into a Jamoca colored superhuman race (so long as we accept the government forcing it) we're not. People self-segregate, Because they want to. It doesn't make them bad people. It's just human nature. Please Lighten up. Maybe try having a sense of Humor.
Your Brother in Christ, Captain. Rainmaker. Out.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 03:24 PM
What part of the meaning of the word "right" implies that it must be free?

If its not free, then its not a right. Or better yet, if you have to pay for permission from the government, then its no longer a right. Nothing is ever free really. Even digging your own well is going to cost you something. Hell, collection of rain water will cost you something.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 03:25 PM
You are either extremely comical in this or very ignorant. "IT all should be free.....just pay taxes". BOL. It cant be "free" if you are paying taxes.

That's why I put the word "free" in parentheses, dumb ass.


And why should I pay "X" amount if I dont use that much? If I have a sprinkler system and my neighbors dont, does that mean they are paying for me to water my lawn daily? Seriously, socialism is the biggest joke mankind has ever developed.

But its the same thought as marriage licence. "Its a basic human right, that we need the government to tell us we can have....after we pay for it." Maybe marriage licences should just be part of taxes too. I mean, everyone gets married right?

At least this would explain those who back fining people for collecting rain water.

If my kid graduates high school on time at the age of 17, and your kids fails and repeats three grades and graduates at 20; we're still taxed at the same rate, even though your child used three more years of public education... correct? So what's the difference? I'm sure that there are plenty more examples I can give of public services that are not consumed equally by the people than just that one that I could come up with.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 03:28 PM
If its not free, then its not a right.

I disagree with this definition of the word.


Or better yet, if you have to pay for permission from the government, then its no longer a right. Nothing is ever free really.

So, there are no rights?


Even digging your own well is going to cost you something. Hell, collection of rain water will cost you something.

I don't disagree with that....but, I disagree that this means they are not rights.

I believe even John Locke wrote that you have only a right to what you earn...or something similar

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 03:32 PM
That's why I put the word "free" in parentheses, dumb ass.How about you dont use the word "free" at all and then there would be no confusion. But I know, it doesnt sound as good to the lofo voters when the correct terminology is used.


If my kid graduates high school on time at the age of 17, and your kids fails and repeats three grades and graduates at 20; we're still taxed at the same rate, even though your child used three more years of public education... correct? So what's the difference? I'm sure that there are plenty more examples I can give of public services that are not consumed equally by the people than just that one that I could come up with.You are right, there are plenty of examples of why socialism doesnt work. If it took my kid 2 more years to graduate, I would put him to work on a farm instead of trying to figure out algebra 2. Just like if it took him a long time to hit a baseball, I would stop paying for him to play baseball. Free markets work so much better than socialism every time. Less money is wasted on those who cant preform to the standards. Sadly, some peoples dreams wont come true, but guess what? Thats life.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 03:36 PM
I disagree with this definition of the word. I corrected myself


So, there are no rights?There are plenty of rights. This overbearing progressive government has found a way to pretty much limit them even though the constitution has clearly forbid them from doing so. But in actuality, I still have the right to hunt without a license, just cant get caught. I have the right to collect rain water. I have the right to get married. I have the right to do a lot of things, as long as I dont get caught by the overlords.


I don't disagree with that....but, I disagree that this means they are not rights.I didnt say they werent. Sorry for the confusion.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 03:39 PM
How about you dont use the word "free" at all and then there would be no confusion. But I know, it doesnt sound as good to the lofo voters when the correct terminology is used.

Dude, I explained my use of the word "free" in that paragraph. I'm not responsible for your inability to grasp it.


You are right, there are plenty of examples of why socialism doesnt work.

Huh? I never said that. YOU did.


If it took my kid 2 more years to graduate, I would put him to work on a farm instead of trying to figure out algebra 2. Just like if it took him a long time to hit a baseball, I would stop paying for him to play baseball.

What you "would" do in these situations has nothing to do with the point I'm making. You're drifting off into lala land... again.

The point is this: not all services provided to the people by the government are consumed equally. So, water for everyone backed by taxes would be absolutely NO different.


Free markets work so much better than socialism every time. Less money is wasted on those who cant preform to the standards. Sadly, some peoples dreams wont come true, but guess what? Thats life.

Russians today who remember the standard of living that they enjoyed during the Soviet Era might beg to differ.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 03:46 PM
I see. So, you're saying the Constitution allows the govt. to ban firearms since the people can still have rocks and sticks? Not saying the should ban firearms at all. I'm saying they shouldn't be providing firearms to everyone just because there is a right of the individual to do so.




Whatever it means in the Constitution. Which, I think, is all of that...none of which has to be provided for free.Exactly my point. So why should utilities be provided for free? A right doesn't mean something should be provided to you.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 03:48 PM
Not saying the should ban firearms at all. I'm saying they shouldn't be providing firearms to everyone just because there is a right of the individual to do so.

No...that's what I've been saying...you guys are the ones that said it must be free if it is a right.


Exactly my point. So why should utilities be provided for free?

I never said utilities should be provided for free.


A right doesn't mean something should be provided to you.

Exactly...this has been my point from the beginning.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 03:50 PM
So public education is not a right then, let alone compulsory?Hell no it's not a right. And being compulsory is exactly what makes it not a right. A right is something that I have the option to do it or not. Owning guns, voting, speaking openly, owning property, etc. If it was compulsory for me to do so then it wouldn't be a right, it would be a law.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:01 PM
The point is this: not all services provided to the people by the government are consumed equally. So, water for everyone backed by taxes would be absolutely NO different.You're right...it would be no different. When it comes to public schools, families are required to send their child to a school within the district. It is regulated by the government. How does that work out for kids in shitty school districts?

Seems to me that what you mean is that you want the government to own it, control it, and give it out as it sees fit.

Standard of living during the Soviet Era? You've got to be shitting me again. This is almost comical. So you're saying it's better to be controlled, censored, and have the basics needed for survival given to you than it is to be free? Pretty interesting theory seeing how that's pretty much how slavery worked.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:02 PM
No...that's what I've been saying...you guys are the ones that said it must be free if it is a right. No no no...absolutely not. That's not what I'm saying at all. Sorry for the confusion. I think we're on the same page here.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 04:06 PM
Hell no it's not a right. And being compulsory is exactly what makes it not a right. A right is something that I have the option to do it or not.

Again, playing loose with the definition of this word, I think.

There actually is a right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education. It is not a natural right, though. It is a right established by law in the U.S.


Owning guns, voting, speaking openly, owning property, etc. If it was compulsory for me to do so then it wouldn't be a right, it would be a law.

Okay, so I belive in Kennesaw, GA, homeowners are required by law to own a gun. Does this mean it's no longer a right there? I don't get it.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 04:10 PM
You're right...it would be no different. When it comes to public schools, families are required to send their child to a school within the district. It is regulated by the government. How does that work out for kids in shitty school districts?

So there's no monopoly on the utility companies that service your area? Can you pick your own utility companies right now? No? Then your point is invalid.


Seems to me that what you mean is that you want the government to own it, control it, and give it out as it sees fit.

Because if the government owns it, you're going to the gulag if you survive Holodomor!


Standard of living during the Soviet Era? You've got to be shitting me again. This is almost comical. So you're saying it's better to be controlled, censored, and have the basics needed for survival given to you than it is to be free? Pretty interesting theory seeing how that's pretty much how slavery worked.

You know what's even more comical? The fact that you somehow got out of this that I'm comparing the Soviet Union to the US when, in fact, I'm comparing it to modern Russia. The human rights record in Russia after Boris Yeltzin have gone to shit, as well as Russia's economy since the fall of the Soviet Union. Throughout Russia's history, the Soviet Era was Russia's most prosperous - more prosperous than the preceding Russian Empire, and more prosperous than today's Russian Federation.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:15 PM
Again, playing loose with the definition of this word, I think.

There actually is a right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education. It is not a natural right, though. It is a right established by law in the U.S. Education should be a right. Being required to do so is an infringement of other rights.

Hypothetical...what would happen if, over the next 20 years, nobody became a teacher? The government then would need to force people into the career in order to provide that public education.

And let's not get rights and laws confused. The two, in fact, are contradictory.



Okay, so I belive in Kennesaw, GA, homeowners are required by law to own a gun. Does this mean it's no longer a right there? I don't get it.I'd say it this way. Owning arms is a right everywhere. Being forced to own a gun is an infringement of other rights. If one right must be infringed upon in order to provide another then one of them is no longer a right.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:19 PM
So there's no monopoly on the utility companies that service your area? Can you pick your own utility companies right now? No? Then your point is invalid. My point is not invalid. I SHOULD be able to pick my own utility company.

The other difference is that in many locations there are several schools while there is only one utility company, so there is no other option. If there is an option, I should be able to choose it.




Because if the government owns it, you're going to the gulag if you survive Holodomor! Is this your new catchphrase? Must have just read a new book or something.




You know what's even more comical? The fact that you somehow got out of this that I'm comparing the Soviet Union to the US when, in fact, I'm comparing it to modern Russia. The human rights record in Russia after Boris Yeltzin have gone to shit, as well as Russia's economy since the fall of the Soviet Union. Throughout Russia's history, the Soviet Era was Russia's most prosperous - more prosperous than the preceding Russian Empire, and more prosperous than today's Russian Federation.More prosperous for the government. Merely survivable by the population, with no way to make it better.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 04:22 PM
Education should be a right. Being required to do so is an infringement of other rights.

Hypothetical...what would happen if, over the next 20 years, nobody became a teacher? The government then would need to force people into the career in order to provide that public education.

Good question. I don't have the answer...the capitalist approach would be they would have to raise teacher salaries until they got high enough to entice people to perform the work.


And let's not get rights and laws confused. The two, in fact, are contradictory.

No they are not.

You are confusing rights. There are actually different types of rights. I think the ones most of us are trying to talk about here are "natural rights"....life, liberty, property, privacy...laws might protect those rights, but they didn't create them. Laws may also infringe upon those right, but they are not supposed to.

...but, there are also rights established by law. The right to an education is one. Although, that is generally tied in to natural as a "property right"...I don't think it meets the true definition...and did not become a "right" until the government endeavored to provide a free education for some of it's citizens...and which point equal protection was applied to extend this right to all.


I'd say it this way. Owning arms is a right everywhere. Being forced to own a gun is an infringement of other rights. If one right must be infringed upon in order to provide another then one of them is no longer a right.

Natural rights are natural rights, they simply exist...they are not granted or removed. They can be infringed on, sure,...but doing so is an immoral act, it does not mean the right ceases to exist.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 04:27 PM
My point is not invalid. I SHOULD be able to pick my own utility company.

The other difference is that in many locations there are several schools while there is only one utility company, so there is no other option. If there is an option, I should be able to choose it.

But the point is... taxed-backed utilities would be no different from the majority of the services that you enjoy, courtesy of the government at all levels.


Is this your new catchphrase? Must have just read a new book or something.

No. I'm trying to make a point that socialist economic policies don't mean that we're gonna be ruled by Stalin or Mao. Propose the government owning something to give to the people, and they try to act like that's what's going to happen.

Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the government owns it then, then that means the people own it.

But, I suppose, instead of that... you'd rather make someone else a billionaire. A billionaire who is capable of making the government his puppet.


More prosperous for the government. Merely survivable by the population, with no way to make it better.

Dude, if you know good and well that you can't dispute what I'm saying about the Soviet Era compared to modern Russia, just come out and say it.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:32 PM
Good question. I don't have the answer...the capitalist approach would be they would have to raise teacher salaries until they got high enough to entice people to perform the work.



No they are not.

You are confusing rights. There are actually different types of rights. I think the ones most of us are trying to talk about here are "natural rights"....life, liberty, property, privacy...

...but, there are also rights established by law. The right to an education is one. Although, that is generally tied in to natural as a "property right"...I don't think it meets the true definition.



Natural rights are natural rights, they simply exist...they are not granted or removed. They can be infringed on, sure,...but doing so is an immoral act, it does not mean the right ceases to exist.

Anything that is a law, in my opinion, is not a right. I know it's just phraseology, but if it's not a natural right than it's simply a law. Something created by other men to fit a legal/social system to what those individuals percieve as being the best route to a free society.

Do I think I have a right to own guns? No. Not at all. I do, however, have a right to protect myself by whatever means necessary.

I stated in a different thread that I believe that a rewrite of our constitution shouldn't be out of the question. Not just amendments, but an overhaul. Something to fit todays society. It should be written in a way that doesn't require every legal challenge goes to the Supreme Court. It needs to get rid of the ambiguity.

I don't understand how we have a Constitution that people can interpret differently from others based on political views. It should be clear...it shouldn't be as vague as the bible.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:35 PM
But the point is... taxed-backed utilities would be no different from the majority of the services that you enjoy, courtesy of the government at all levels. Except the government could control it.




Dude, if you know good and well that you can't dispute what I'm saying about the Soviet Era compared to modern Russia, just come out and say it.

Come out and say what? Are you really going to tell me that being taken care of is better than being free?

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 04:38 PM
I stated in a different thread that I believe that a rewrite of our constitution shouldn't be out of the question. Not just amendments, but an overhaul. Something to fit todays society. It should be written in a way that doesn't require every legal challenge goes to the Supreme Court. It needs to get rid of the ambiguity.

I don't understand how we have a Constitution that people can interpret differently from others based on political views. It should be clear...it shouldn't be as vague as the bible.

You DO realize that a new constitution means a completely new government... right? Your current retirement and benefits that you get would go away, and it would up to the government under the new constitution to choose whether or not to recognize service under the old and give you a retirement and benefits under the new.


Be careful what you wish for.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 04:41 PM
Except the government could control it.

Ah, you resorted to turning this into a circular argument.


Come out and say what? Are you really going to tell me that being taken care of is better than being free?

If you really believed that this wasn't the case, you'd be lauding Somalia as the epitome of how the world should be.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:49 PM
Ah, you resorted to turning this into a circular argument.



If you really believed that this wasn't the case, you'd be lauding Somalia as the epitome of how the world should be.Ah, yes, Somalia is the standard for sure.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:53 PM
You DO realize that a new constitution means a completely new government... right? Your current retirement and benefits that you get would go away, and it would up to the government under the new constitution to choose whether or not to recognize service under the old and give you a retirement and benefits under the new.


Be careful what you wish for.

Ok...let me rephrase. What we need to do is not to just add amendments. What we need to do is take a look at every current amendment and clarify them. Rewrite them. Elaborate on them. Each and every one of them to reduce as much ambiguity as possible.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 04:53 PM
Ah, yes, Somalia is the standard for sure.

Why wouldn't it be? It's a lawless country... you like that, right? When it comes to having rights, how much better can it get than living in a land of lawlessness? And, of course, Somalia provides absolutely NOTHING for its citizens!

Somalia should be heaven to you! You'd probably cream your pants when you set foot on Somalian soil for the first time!

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 04:57 PM
Anything that is a law, in my opinion, is not a right. I know it's just phraseology, but if it's not a natural right than it's simply a law. Something created by other men to fit a legal/social system to what those individuals percieve as being the best route to a free society.

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. No point in arguing what a word means or "should mean", I suppose, but I think my definition is line with generally accepted English language.


Do I think I have a right to own guns? No. Not at all. I do, however, have a right to protect myself by whatever means necessary.

Okay...if you say so. Again, this definition of "right" is mostly in your own head...so it does confuse communication among other people.


I stated in a different thread that I believe that a rewrite of our constitution shouldn't be out of the question. Not just amendments, but an overhaul. Something to fit todays society. It should be written in a way that doesn't require every legal challenge goes to the Supreme Court. It needs to get rid of the ambiguity.

That would be nice. although I don't think the current polticial climate would allow anything to get done. Can you imagine the discussion on whether we should include a right to personally own firearms would lead? With the high degree of agreement that is need to even just amend the Constitution, let alone come up with a new one...I just don't think it is possible at the moment.


I don't understand how we have a Constitution that people can interpret differently from others based on political views. It should be clear...it shouldn't be as vague as the bible.

I know..what were those guys thinking?

Why should the Bible be vague?

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 04:58 PM
Why wouldn't it be? It's a lawless country... you like that, right? When it comes to having rights, how much better can it get than living in a land of lawlessness? And, of course, Somalia provides absolutely NOTHING for its citizens!

Somalia should be heaven to you! You'd probably cream your pants when you set foot on Somalian soil for the first time!

I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm saying that you are confusing rights and laws. We cannot be a lawless country. Without laws we'd have nothing to protect our rights.

And I always love it when you try to descredit the person you are arguing with by making an outlandish comparison. I can almost see your temper increasing.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 05:00 PM
IWhy should the Bible be vague?
LOL...stuff really doesn't translate on the internet. I wasn't saying it should be vague. I was saying that it is vague and that vagueness causes many disagreements. The constitution should not do the same.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 05:10 PM
I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm saying that you are confusing rights and laws. We cannot be a lawless country. Without laws we'd have nothing to protect our rights.

And I always love it when you try to descredit the person you are arguing with by making an outlandish comparison. I can almost see your temper increasing.

It's not outlandish at all.

Here you are, saying K-12 education should be optional. Seriously? You want a bunch of idiots who can't add and read to run around with all of these "freedoms" and "rights"? Sounds alot like Somalia to me.

And why should the government protect your rights, when you can protect them yourself? I thought that's what you wanted? That, or you could pay someone else to protect you.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 05:13 PM
It's not outlandish at all.

Here you are, saying K-12 education should be optional. Seriously? You want a bunch of idiots who can't add and read to run around with all of these "freedoms" and "rights"? Sounds alot like Somalia to me.

And why should the government protect your rights, when you can protect them yourself? I thought that's what you wanted? That, or you could pay someone else to protect you.

Enjoy your conversation...

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 05:24 PM
Enjoy your conversation...

I'm just pointing out what the consequences would be of the things you suggest. And now you don't want to talk about it? You want to take your ball and go home? Not suprising, yet it never ceases to amaze.

Rainmaker
06-26-2014, 05:35 PM
Ok...let me rephrase. What we need to do is not to just add amendments. What we need to do is take a look at every current amendment and clarify them. Rewrite them. Elaborate on them. Each and every one of them to reduce as much ambiguity as possible.

There's nothing wrong with it as written. The constitution doesn't need changing just because we're not following it. It's only 4400 words for a reason. It's limited by design. The states already have their own constitutions that are in most cases much longer.

Careful what you ask for. You might just get it. Think your rights are under attack now? The Corporate owned Oligarchy and their Lawyers would turn this country into a neo-feudal state if given that chance.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 06:45 PM
Russians today who remember the standard of living that they enjoyed during the Soviet Era might beg to differ.
Yes, and poor people in prodjects may think their standard of living is better if they had to work for what they got. That is generally true when you have to put forth minimal effort to achieve the same thing as everyone else. But hey, how about we ask the Cubans that travel 90 miles by rubber tube to escape the Castros?

garhkal
06-26-2014, 06:53 PM
Right...should I get provided, for free, with everything required to live? Should I get provided, for free, with everything that is a right? Free guns? Free land/house?

In addition, do we want government ran utilities? Is the government going to be the employer for farmers so that staple food items will be free?

I made a separate thread for this discussion SJ.



But its the same thought as marriage licence. "Its a basic human right, that we need the government to tell us we can have....after we pay for it." Maybe marriage licences should just be part of taxes too. I mean, everyone gets married right?

That's something i have never understood. If marriage IS a right by our constitution etc, how then can any locale require a license to get wed?


Well, there are states that fine collection of rain water, so there could be a law against providing for yourself some day.

Damn. You're right. Never heard of this before, but a look-up on google shows it happened in Oregon.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/


Education should be a right. Being required to do so is an infringement of other rights.

Hypothetical...what would happen if, over the next 20 years, nobody became a teacher? The government then would need to force people into the career in order to provide that public education.

I'd love to see them try.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 06:58 PM
Good question. I don't have the answer...the capitalist approach would be they would have to raise teacher salaries until they got high enough to entice people to perform the work.Thats a misrepresentation of definition of capitalism. The government can never be part of capitalist society because what it has, it has stolen from others. The capitialist schools are the private and charter schools. Some times its the home schools. But even sending your kids to those OPTIONS, you are still having to pay for the poorer preforming, undermanned public schools. But hey, we all know it has nothing to do with schools as to why kids under preform in them, it has to do with the parents, or lack there of.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 07:01 PM
But the point is... taxed-backed utilities would be no different from the majority of the services that you enjoy, courtesy of the government at all levels.Cause the government is benevolent and would never be used to in a nefarious way to "punish" those so called enemies of those in power. That NEEEEEEEVER happens.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 07:05 PM
If you really believed that this wasn't the case, you'd be lauding Somalia as the epitome of how the world should be.
LOL, Like Russia today, Somalia was a socialist shit hole for the people. After the government collapsed under the weight of socialist corruption, it has since turned into what you all love to try and tout as a libertarian utopia. Sorry, but there needs to be a correction period before a failed nation state can start being prosperous. Do you really think if the US turned libertarian tomorrow, everything would just be working honky dory right away? I dont.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 07:09 PM
Ok...let me rephrase. What we need to do is not to just add amendments. What we need to do is take a look at every current amendment and clarify them. Rewrite them. Elaborate on them. Each and every one of them to reduce as much ambiguity as possible.

I disagree. The constitution was meant to be read at the very basics of human understanding and english literacy. Sadly, the elitist have comfounded the wording to make us believe up means "down" and "Shall not be infringed" has a "but" behind it. Basic English language, like a coma, shouldnt be that hard to understand that the founders put it in there to distiguish the 2nd ammendment into militias AND all free citizens as being seperate entities.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 07:14 PM
It's not outlandish at all.

Here you are, saying K-12 education should be optional. Seriously? You want a bunch of idiots who can't add and read to run around with all of these "freedoms" and "rights"? Sounds alot like Somalia to me.

And why should the government protect your rights, when you can protect them yourself? I thought that's what you wanted? That, or you could pay someone else to protect you.

It SHOULD be optional. Not only on where I send my kids, but how much of the K-12 education I as their parent feel they should have. Not only that, I should be able to select their course of study based on what I know they can do. If my son is great with math, I would like to put him into a math heavy regimn. If I was a farmer, I may not want to send him to school very long if all he is going to do is come home and help with the farm work. I may want to just home school my kids. But even that needs approval on what I teach them, even though time and time again home schoolers win acedemic competitions.

WILDJOKER5
06-26-2014, 07:19 PM
That's something i have never understood. If marriage IS a right by our constitution etc, how then can any locale require a license to get wed?

Damn. You're right. Never heard of this before, but a look-up on google shows it happened in Oregon.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/

The constitution doesnt give us rights, it keeps the government from taking them away. Sadly, once the SCOTUS deemed itself the right to interpret the constitution, the citizens rights started getting eaten away becuase they pretty much said "if a lawyer can make a profound arguement as to why 'x' really means 'y', then we can rewrite the constiution through precident." Obamacare is an example of exactly that.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 07:43 PM
Thats a misrepresentation of definition of capitalism. The government can never be part of capitalist society because what it has, it has stolen from others.

Not true. Capitalism just insists on minimal government interference in the economy. A government can still exist and have things in a capitalist economy.


The capitialist schools are the private and charter schools.

I'll give you private schools.


Some times its the home schools. But even sending your kids to those OPTIONS, you are still having to pay for the poorer preforming, undermanned public schools.

Yes. This does not meant they have stolen it. It means the people have formed a government, and empowered it to collect taxes. That is not anti-capitalist.

However...we were discussing a much narrower question...and that was what would happen if no one chose to be a public school teacer. Sands proposed the govt. would force people into the profession...since they have already taken on the obligation of providing a free education. My response, which if not pure and true capitalism, is certainly a more capitalist approach than his....and given those choices, a capitalist would likely choose mine.

If you are saying even a more capitalist choice would be to close the public schools and let the market decide whether or not it wants to educated children and then have private enterprise meet that demand...then yes, I would agree with that (in that it is a more capitalistic answer, not that i would agree with that action)...but i don't think I misrepresented the definition of capitalism.


But hey, we all know it has nothing to do with schools as to why kids under preform in them, it has to do with the parents, or lack there of.

Yes, I agree with this...

Rainmaker
06-26-2014, 07:47 PM
The constitution doesnt give us rights, it keeps the government from taking them away. Sadly, once the SCOTUS deemed itself the right to interpret the constitution, the citizens rights started getting eaten away becuase they pretty much said "if a lawyer can make a profound arguement as to why 'x' really means 'y', then we can rewrite the constiution through precident." Obamacare is an example of exactly that.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. So long as Congress abdicates this responsibility, the system is broken. Money flows to Power. Always has. always will. But, they want you to think it's the other way around.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 07:51 PM
However...we were discussing a much narrower question...and that was what would happen if no one chose to be a public school teacer. Sands proposed the govt. would force people into the profession...since they have already taken on the obligation of providing a free education. My response, which if not pure and true capitalism, is certainly a more capitalist approach than his....and given those choices, a capitalist would likely choose mine.

If you are saying even a more capitalist choice would be to close the public schools and let the market decide whether or not it wants to educated children and then have private enterprise meet that demand...then yes, I would agree with that (in that it is a more capitalistic answer, not that i would agree with that action)...but i don't think I misrepresented the definition of capitalism.





We're already in a situation where there are too few teachers. That has increased class sizes and reduced the quality of the education. Teacher salaries are not going up. I suppose that if providing a classroom to pack students into so that we can say we're providing an education as has been promised then we're right on track.

The only way the capitalist society would be able to improve this is to do as they've already done. Private schools, etc. What happens next? The government saying that all kids should be able to attend the private schools for free because that's the only chance of them recieving their right to an education?

I'm not arguing one way or the other about which schools are better. Just saying that it's not a right, no matter how much someone tells you it is, if you rely on someone else to give it to you.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 08:06 PM
We're already in a situation where there are too few teachers. That has increased class sizes and reduced the quality of the education. Teacher salaries are not going up.

Apparently it has not yet gotten to the point where the people have demanded it. Yes, people will moan and groan about it...but come time to pay for it, they don't want it that bad.


I suppose that if providing a classroom to pack students into so that we can say we're providing an education as has been promised then we're right on track.

I suppose


The only way the capitalist society would be able to improve this is to do as they've already done. Private schools, etc. What happens next? The government saying that all kids should be able to attend the private schools for free because that's the only chance of them recieving their right to an education?

I'm not arguing one way or the other about which schools are better. Just saying that it's not a right, no matter how much someone tells you it is, if you rely on someone else to give it to you.

I can not argue with you on what your opinion of what words mean.

I can only say, for the rest of us normal English speakiers, this is not within the definition of what a right is. And to further clarify, there are rights provided by law and only by law...the right to vote, for instance...the right to a free press...the right to a jury of one's peers...the right to an attorney....these rights are provided only by law...they are not natural rights, but they are rights in our country. In your "opinion" these are not rights at all, I get that,...I think what you mean for the rest of us, is that they are not natural rights...they are statutory rights.

But even among the natural rights...nowhere does that imply you do not have to rely on someone else to fully obtain them. i.e. the right to property. You have a right to work and obtain property...but, most of us rely on someone else to convert the our labor into the property we want....either through working for a wage, or something else.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 08:16 PM
Apparently it has not yet gotten to the point where the people have demanded it. Yes, people will moan and groan about it...but come time to pay for it, they don't want it that bad.



I suppose



I can not argue with you on what your opinion of what words mean.

I can only say, for the rest of us normal English speakiers, this is not within the definition of what a right is. And to further clarify, there are rights provided by law and only by law...the right to vote, for instance...the right to a free press...the right to a jury of one's peers...the right to an attorney....these rights are provided only by law...they are not natural rights, but they are rights in our country. In your "opinion" these are not rights at all, I get that,...I think what you mean for the rest of us, is that they are not natural rights...they are statutory rights.

But even among the natural rights...nowhere does that imply you do not have to rely on someone else to fully obtain them. i.e. the right to property. You have a right to work and obtain property...but, most of us rely on someone else to convert the our labor into the property we want....either through working for a wage, or something else.

Again, you are equating property with real estate. Property is just something that is yours...something you own. My shoes are my property. Nobody has a right to take them away from me. That's the point of what the Constitution says. "It's my stuff, you can't take it". Even without the Constitution, that is still a natural right. And if you try to take it I have a right to stop you...again...a natural right. Stuff that was happening when we were evolving from fish to cavemen to dinosaurs to monkeys to cows to people..."This is mine...stay away".

Everything else is simply a law. The rest of you "normal" English" speakers define it otherwise because that's how you were told to define it. It's a law. If it was a right to vote, criminals couldn't have the right taken away. If it was a right to bear arms, criminals couldn't have it taken away.

A right cannot be taken away. If it can be taken away, it's merely a privilege for those who follow the laws.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 08:22 PM
Yes, and poor people in prodjects may think their standard of living is better if they had to work for what they got. That is generally true when you have to put forth minimal effort to achieve the same thing as everyone else. But hey, how about we ask the Cubans that travel 90 miles by rubber tube to escape the Castros?

Bullshit. How many working class people piss and moan about how they THINK that those in the "prodjects" have it better than they do? Since these working class people are, indeed, "working" class... shouldn't be content with their standard of living by your logic?


Cause the government is benevolent and would never be used to in a nefarious way to "punish" those so called enemies of those in power. That NEEEEEEEVER happens.

Private companies do this all the time. So if the government did it, what would be the difference? I'll tell you: the people have no choice which utility companies service their area, who which managers and executives get to keep their jobs. They don't have to be "people pleasers." Those who hold office in our government DO.


LOL, Like Russia today, Somalia was a socialist shit hole for the people.

The problem is that when Somalia became socialist, the socialist government didn't have many resources to work with.


After the government collapsed under the weight of socialist corruption, it has since turned into what you all love to try and tout as a libertarian utopia. Sorry, but there needs to be a correction period before a failed nation state can start being prosperous. Do you really think if the US turned libertarian tomorrow, everything would just be working honky dory right away? I dont.

How long does Somalia need in order to get its shit together? In order for Somalia to get its shit together, it would have to CEASE to be that libertarian state that you love so much.


It SHOULD be optional. Not only on where I send my kids, but how much of the K-12 education I as their parent feel they should have. Not only that, I should be able to select their course of study based on what I know they can do. If my son is great with math, I would like to put him into a math heavy regimn. If I was a farmer, I may not want to send him to school very long if all he is going to do is come home and help with the farm work. I may want to just home school my kids. But even that needs approval on what I teach them, even though time and time again home schoolers win acedemic competitions.

Mississippi was the last state to make K-12 education compulsory, and that was in 1981. That explains a lot about that state. Thirty-three years later, Mississippi is still feeling the effects of that. Is that what you want for your children?

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 08:23 PM
A right cannot be taken away. If it can be taken away, it's merely a privilege for those who follow the laws.

In other words, we don't have the right to freedom. Unless, of course, we move to Somalia.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 08:29 PM
Again, you are equating property with real estate.

No I'm not...I didn't even mention real estate. Although, that would be a type of property.


Property is just something that is yours...something you own. My shoes are my property. Nobody has a right to take them away from me. That's the point of what the Constitution says. "It's my stuff, you can't take it". Even without the Constitution, that is still a natural right. And if you try to take it I have a right to stop you...again...a natural right. Stuff that was happening when we were evolving from fish to cavemen to dinosaurs to monkeys to cows to people..."This is mine...stay away".

It's so weird that it seems like you want to argue but then your explanation says exactly what I've been saying all along. Yes, property rights are natural rights.

In your opinion, natural rights are the only rights...that's not correct.


Everything else is simply a law. The rest of you "normal" English" speakers define it otherwise because that's how you were told to define it.

Well, that is kind of what a word definition is.


It's a law.

Yes, of course. Hence the term statutory rights.


If it was a right to vote, criminals couldn't have the right taken away. If it was a right to bear arms, criminals couldn't have it taken away.

So...criminals can't have their life taken away? or their liberty?


A right cannot be taken away. If it can be taken away, it's merely a privilege for those who follow the laws.

...again, I'm can not argue with you over what a word means...when it is clear since the start of our country (and before) that the word "right" is used to describe statutory rights. Your "opinion" is that English speakers should not use the word right to say statutory rights...it's very difficult to argue with that kind of insanity.

Capt Alfredo
06-26-2014, 09:48 PM
Captain, Please define" Veiled Racist Shtick" What exactly does that mean to you? Why do you dislike every post you disagree with, or cry racism to the moderators, while at the same time never actually refuting anything Rainmaker says?

Let's talk about it. Now, Rainmaker has one simple question for you. Do you think White people owe you a living? Why or why not.

Rainmaker's said many time before, his opinion is that the differences in races (including IQ) are largely cultural. Perhaps, this is not going to change? All men are created in God's image, after that they have free will.

People need to let go of the diversity cultists LIE they've been sold, that the US has historically been Multi-cultural. It hasn't. The U.S. has always been multi-ethnic. But, with shared American values that came PRIMARILY out of Western Christendom. Which, in Rainmaker's opinion is a SUPERIOR CULTURE and NOT A SUPERIOR RACE. Rainmaker Concede it's a matter of opinion. But, A house divided cannot stand. Multiculturalism leads to anarchy. No matter how much the progressives want to tell you that we're all going to evolve into a Jamoca colored superhuman race (so long as we accept the government forcing it) we're not. People self-segregate, Because they want to. It doesn't make them bad people. It's just human nature. Please Lighten up. Maybe try having a sense of Humor.
Your Brother in Christ, Captain. Rainmaker. Out.

I simply mused aloud that it was odd the mods would let your half-ass racial stereotype writings go on without ever being addressed. Also, what is the point of the dislike button if it is not to be used to signal things a reader...dislikes? I'm not going to bother arguing points with you,especially when you say that people of different races have lower mental capacities *edit* due to their culture *end edit*. You can take that as an internet win if you want. I don't need a sense of humor because your shtick isn't funny.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 10:00 PM
So...criminals can't have their life taken away? They can, doesn't mean they should. Guess it depends on your view of the death penalty. That would be an infringement of a basic human right.

or their liberty? Again, liberty is a "statutory right" which is taken away due to breaking a contract with the government.





There are two inherent rights. One is the right to live. The other is the right to be able to choose to do what I want with what I earn. Everything else is a contract I have with the country/state I choose to live in. Since I choose to gain the benefits of being a law abiding citizen, I am more than happy to pay my taxes and gain the privileges one does for doing so.

If I chose to sell everything I have and move to a different country I then accept whatever tradeoff I have to make in order to gain the privileges of that country. It's not like I'd go to another country and say "It's my right to vote!" or It's my right to own a gun!". But it would still be my right to my life and my property.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 10:06 PM
They can, doesn't mean they should. Guess it depends on your view of the death penalty. That would be an infringement of a basic human right.
Again, liberty is a "statutory right" which is taken away due to breaking a contract with the government.

Do the words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

mean anything to you?

endowed by our Creator and inalienable=natural

Are you trolling again?


There are two inherent rights. One is the right to live. The other is the right to be able to choose to do what I want with what I earn. Everything else is a contract I have with the country/state I choose to live in. Since I choose to gain the benefits of being a law abiding citizen, I am more than happy to pay my taxes and gain the privileges one does for doing so.

Read John Locke


If I chose to sell everything I have and move to a different country I then accept whatever tradeoff I have to make in order to gain the privileges of that country. It's not like I'd go to another country and say "It's my right to vote!" or It's my right to own a gun!". But it would still be my right to my life and my property.

...and liberty.

Right to vote, right to own a gun...yes, those are statutory.

Life, liberty and property...those are natural rights. Here's a hint...even those can be "taken away" morally, through due process of law.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 10:19 PM
Do the words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

mean anything to you? You mean those rights that were considered unalienable by people who owned slaves? And I've never seen these rights in the bible. If they were endowed by my creator I'm sure it would have been in there somewhere.


endowed by our Creator and inalienable=natural For the Founding Fathers to claim they know what rights the "Creator" endowed us with is pretty pompous.

I think the Founding Fathers wrote down what they thought was best for the country at the time and that they put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that American's would remain free. I have no doubt about that.

I think you are doing what the typical American does and assume that our morals and laws are the only ones that are right and that we know what's best for everyone.

Natural rights ARE the only rights. Everything else is a privilege.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 10:26 PM
You mean those rights that were considered unalienable by people who owned slaves?

Yes. That's not to say there isn't a contradiction between their beliefs and their practices...


And I've never seen these rights in the bible. If they were endowed by my creator I'm sure it would have been in there somewhere.

I'd say it's more of a philosophy perhaps...but, I didn't write the Declaration of Independence. The idea that Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness and(Property, later in the Const.) are natural rights is not something I invented...it is a founding principle of our country.


For the Founding Fathers to claim they know what rights the "Creator" endowed us with is pretty pompous.

...whether they claimed to "know" this or not, I dunno...but they decided that this philosophy would be a founding principle.


I think the Founding Fathers wrote down what they thought was best for the country at the time and that they put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that American's would remain free. I have no doubt about that.

I also believe that most of them felt this was a true moral principle.


I think you are doing what the typical American does and assume that our morals and laws are the only ones that are right and that we know what's best for everyone.

I don't see where I've done that.


Natural rights ARE the only rights. Everything else is a privilege.

Not in English.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 10:37 PM
Natural rights ARE the only rights. Everything else is a privilege.

I'm just not going to continue arguing over what words mean...this is where I'm coming from:


Natural and legal rights
Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.

Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.

Okay...so in your opinion, legal rights should be called priveleges...does it really matter?

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 10:43 PM
I'm just not going to continue arguing over what words mean...this is where I'm coming from:



Okay...so in your opinion, legal rights should be called priveleges...does it really matter?

It does matter, completely. That's why we constantly hear people complaining that their rights are being taken away anytime something happens they don't like. That's why we see so many people bitching that their "right to free speech" is being taken when they get fired for saying something. If it was a right, you wouldn't be able to receive punishment for exercising it.

If free speech was a right then I could say absolutely anything I wanted with no consequence. I couldn't have my privilege of liberty taken from me for saying something that incites violence. If it was a right, it would be "inalienable" as you stated. It's not. It is a privilege until I say something that is considered over the line (also determined by statutes).

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 10:53 PM
It does matter, completely. That's why we constantly hear people complaining that their rights are being taken away anytime something happens they don't like. That's why we see so many people bitching that their "right to free speech" is being taken when they get fired for saying something. If it was a right, you wouldn't be able to receive punishment for exercising it.

Wow..."lack of consequence" is also not in the definition of "right"

I agree that people who think a right to free speech implies no consequence are wrong about that.


If free speech was a right then I could say absolutely anything I wanted with no consequence. I couldn't have my privilege of liberty taken from me for saying something that incites violence. If it was a right, it would be "inalienable" as you stated. It's not. It is a privilege until I say something that is considered over the line (also determined by statutes).

We're just back to argue over words. I agree the Free Speech is not an unalienable right, I don't think...though I reserve judgement on this...would have to consider an argument to the contrary...just haven't thought about it that much. Is there and unalienable right to express yourself? I dunno exactly.

I don't agree that this means it is a privilege.

We don't hear the courts, or any authority, or anybody except maybe you, talking about the privilege to vote, the privilege of a free press, the privilege of bearing arms....to do so, would mean these could be taken without due process of law, and I believe would directly contradict our founding principles. They are not unalienable, perhaps, but they are rights in the Constitution...contitutional, legal or statutory rights in a broad sense of the word statutory.

Anyway...your point is that for the last few hundred years almost everyone has been misusing the word "right", in speech, in laws, in the constitution...okay, carry on. I'll just go ahead and stick with word the word means to most of us.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 11:00 PM
Wow..."lack of consequence" is also not in the definition of "right" Nope, it's not. Should be. Free speech should be free speech. Right to assemble should not require an OK from the city, if it was actually a right. I guess maybe it's better to describe them as freedoms instead of privileges. Either way, we don't have the right to do anything that we are required to follow guidelines in order to do.




Anyway...your point is that for the last few hundred years almost everyone has been misusing the word "right", in speech, in laws, in the constitution...okay, carry on. I'll just go ahead and stick with word the word means to most of us.No...not at all. I'm saying that for thousands of years the word "right" and its translations have been misused. Let's not forget that the country we broke away from used the word "right" for much longer than we have, and I'd say that their definition of "right" wasn't correct either, unless you think that royalty has the right to riches based on their bloodline. Or is OUR definition of it the only correct one?

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 11:04 PM
Nope, it's not. Should be.

I am going to stop here...not going to argue what the definition of words Should Be.


Free speech should be free speech. Right to assemble should not require an OK from the city, if it was actually a right. I guess maybe it's better to describe them as freedoms instead of privileges. Either way, we don't have the right to do anything that we are required to follow guidelines in order to do.

Word games...


No...not at all. I'm saying that for thousands of years the word "right" and its translations have been misused. Let's not forget that the country we broke away from used the word "right" for much longer than we have, and I'd say that their definition of "right" wasn't correct either, unless you think that royalty has the right to riches based on their bloodline. Or is OUR definition of it the only correct one?

I think once a word "gets misused for thousands of years", it's definition has effectively changed.

Cheers.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 11:08 PM
I think once a word "gets misused for thousands of years", it's definition has effectively changed.

Cheers.

So you think it's a right to be the leader of a country based on your bloodline? Sounds like a privilege to me.

And what about if the government declares Martial Law? How can a right be suspended? Is Martial Law a violation of my rights?

Patriot Act? Another "suspension" of those rights?

Not sure how something can be a right when the government can take it away from you. And IF it is a right then every time it's taken away then it is a violation.

Chief_KO
06-27-2014, 02:59 AM
Back to topic.

Perfect name for the Washington NFL franchise (that plays in Maryland):

The Washington Trojans...we need protection from all those d@*#heads in D.C.

garhkal
06-27-2014, 06:53 AM
How long does Somalia need in order to get its shit together? In order for Somalia to get its shit together, it would have to CEASE to be that libertarian state that you love so much.


They would also have to get rid of those islamic extremists they have, especially Al Shabab.



Mississippi was the last state to make K-12 education compulsory, and that was in 1981. That explains a lot about that state. Thirty-three years later, Mississippi is still feeling the effects of that. Is that what you want for your children?

If i had any, heck nope. Personally i would rather have the option of home schooling.


Back to topic.

Perfect name for the Washington NFL franchise (that plays in Maryland):

The Washington Trojans...we need protection from all those d@*#heads in D.C.

Na.. The Washington Can't get anything dones..

WILDJOKER5
06-27-2014, 12:11 PM
Not true. Capitalism just insists on minimal government interference in the economy. A government can still exist and have things in a capitalist economy.True, my point was that it cant be part of the market because it isnt under the same constraints as a private business is like watching its budget.


Yes. This does not meant they have stolen it. It means the people have formed a government, and empowered it to collect taxes. That is not anti-capitalist.People formed the mafia too, but since the government turned out to be a stronger gang of thugs, their methods of extraction is "legal".


However...we were discussing a much narrower question...and that was what would happen if no one chose to be a public school teacer. Sands proposed the govt. would force people into the profession...since they have already taken on the obligation of providing a free education. My response, which if not pure and true capitalism, is certainly a more capitalist approach than his....and given those choices, a capitalist would likely choose mine.Those are jsut choices of "lesser evils" with teh word "capitalist" thrown in even though its not. Its like saying killing someone at 2 is more humane than killing them at 5 because they are less aware of what is happening at 2.


If you are saying even a more capitalist choice would be to close the public schools and let the market decide whether or not it wants to educated children and then have private enterprise meet that demand...then yes, I would agree with that (in that it is a more capitalistic answer, not that i would agree with that action)...but i don't think I misrepresented the definition of capitalism.I was giving the only capitalist answer. You either have free market or corruption. There really is no grey area here. Once the government gets involved, cronism and corruption are bound to follow. It was actually a founding tenant of liberalism. Its exactly what happened in the civil war effort to build the railroads through government finances and then we had massive monopolies that people say they didnt like but gave the government more power when it was the governments fault in the beginning.

WILDJOKER5
06-27-2014, 12:24 PM
Private companies do this all the time. So if the government did it, what would be the difference? I'll tell you: the people have no choice which utility companies service their area, who which managers and executives get to keep their jobs. They don't have to be "people pleasers." Those who hold office in our government DO.Private companies have an army of police force that can abduct you against your will for not "buying" their product or allowing money to be taken away from you forcibly due to a rule that it arbitrarily made up to suit the spending you had no choice in the matter? Actually, if you are an "enemy" of Apple (you buy microsoft products), apple bends to try a meet your needs if they deem to want your business.


The problem is that when Somalia became socialist, the socialist government didn't have many resources to work with.
And you think it is just going to turn peaceful after socialism dug the country an even bigger grave?


How long does Somalia need in order to get its shit together? In order for Somalia to get its shit together, it would have to CEASE to be that libertarian state that you love so much.Thats the thing, its NOT a libertarian state. You are confusing libertarian with anarchist. There is a wide range of libertarian view points as there are with authoritarian. IF we use the founding principles of liberalism as what our founders set up for the US and the way I think most libertarians in the US want, it is a philosophy that government is a necessary evil, and keeping it as small as it can with protecting individual rights to safety is the way to keep the evil in check.


Mississippi was the last state to make K-12 education compulsory, and that was in 1981. That explains a lot about that state. Thirty-three years later, Mississippi is still feeling the effects of that. Is that what you want for your children?

I agree, they voted for Cochran after never voting for a GOP member since the CRA based on hyperbole rehtoric and straight out lies. But what-evs. The states that have had cumpulsory schools have only been doing worse and worse each year for decades.

Rusty Jones
06-27-2014, 12:48 PM
Private companies have an army of police force that can abduct you against your will for not "buying" their product or allowing money to be taken away from you forcibly due to a rule that it arbitrarily made up to suit the spending you had no choice in the matter?

Does the government send an army of police out to abduct you for using UPS or FedEx, instead of the US Postal Service? No? Then not only is your point invalid; it's obviously the stuff of conservative conspiracy theories... right along with FEMA concentration camps.


Actually, if you are an "enemy" of Apple (you buy microsoft products), apple bends to try a meet your needs if they deem to want your business.

You're talking about winning over a customer. I'm not. Look at the private prison industry... paying off judges, jury members, attorneys, and police officers in order to get more convictions so they can fill up their prisons and get that money. Look at the oil industry, and how they've been engaging in price gouging for the past ten years. Look at how the restaurant industry wanted to get revenge on the American people because of Obamacare. I'm talking about shit like that.


And you think it is just going to turn peaceful after socialism dug the country an even bigger grave?

It happened in Romania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Mongolia, and dozens of other countries I haven't mentioned. What's Somalia's excuse?


Thats the thing, its NOT a libertarian state. You are confusing libertarian with anarchist. There is a wide range of libertarian view points as there are with authoritarian. IF we use the founding principles of liberalism as what our founders set up for the US and the way I think most libertarians in the US want, it is a philosophy that government is a necessary evil, and keeping it as small as it can with protecting individual rights to safety is the way to keep the evil in check.

So tell me... what parts of government do you want then? Because all I've seen you discuss were the parts that you DON'T want.


I agree, they voted for Cochran after never voting for a GOP member since the CRA based on hyperbole rehtoric and straight out lies. But what-evs. The states that have had cumpulsory schools have only been doing worse and worse each year for decades.

Dude... if you want to discuss the Mississippi gubernatorial primaries, start another thread. The point is, K-12 education was not compulsory there until 1981; and their students are among the worst academic performers because of it.

Rainmaker
06-27-2014, 02:31 PM
I simply mused aloud that it was odd the mods would let your half-ass racial stereotype writings go on without ever being addressed. Also, what is the point of the dislike button if it is not to be used to signal things a reader...dislikes? I'm not going to bother arguing points with you,especially when you say that people of different races have lower mental capacities *edit* due to their culture *end edit*. You can take that as an internet win if you want. I don't need a sense of humor because your shtick isn't funny.

Ok, Capt. Ever think maybe the moderators actually read the posts before acting when you complain? show me where I said that, any group had "lower mental capacities". IQ is measured by a test. Isn't cultural bias a recognized tenant of liberalism? I guess not much has changed since, the bell curve was written. Science is only relevant to liberals when it supports their world view. As a matter of fact whites don't score highest on IQ tests. Yet, they are undeniably successful as a group. I suppose you deny that culture influences success? Can you admit that things like a culture's pride (not to be confused with Vanity), work ethic, determination, family support, faith, confidence, impulse control, expectations. etc. matter? or are they just antiquated racist concepts too? Tell you what. don't answer Capt. Just keep disliking whenever you don't hear what you want. Which is precisely why the culture of victimization never gets anywhere. Its "Victims" prefer empathy to envy. It's a self defeating mentality. Fortunately we have free will to choose which we get. Out.

garhkal
06-27-2014, 07:05 PM
It happened in Romania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Mongolia, and dozens of other countries I haven't mentioned. What's Somalia's excuse?


Its Muslim? That's the only thing i can think of.

Capt Alfredo
06-28-2014, 10:07 AM
Ok, Capt. Ever think maybe the moderators actually read the posts before acting when you complain? show me where I said that, any group had "lower mental capacities". IQ is measured by a test. Isn't cultural bias a recognized tenant of liberalism? I guess not much has changed since, the bell curve was written. Science is only relevant to liberals when it supports their world view. As a matter of fact whites don't score highest on IQ tests. Yet, they are undeniably successful as a group. I suppose you deny that culture influences success? Can you admit that things like a culture's pride (not to be confused with Vanity), work ethic, determination, family support, faith, confidence, impulse control, expectations. etc. matter? or are they just antiquated racist concepts too? Tell you what. don't answer Capt. Just keep disliking whenever you don't hear what you want. Which is precisely why the culture of victimization never gets anywhere. Its "Victims" prefer empathy to envy. It's a self defeating mentality. Fortunately we have free will to choose which we get. Out.

Straw Man city. You're welcome to it. You can get your point across without resorting to caricature.

Rainmaker
06-28-2014, 08:26 PM
Straw Man city. You're welcome to it. You can get your point across without resorting to caricature.

I'd say I just did Captain.

BENDER56
06-29-2014, 04:39 AM
Capt. Alfredo and Rainmaker, sittin' in a tree,
Capt. Alfredo and Rainmaker, sittin' in a tree,
Capt. Alfredo and Rainmaker, sittin' in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

First comes love, then comes marriage,
First comes love, then comes marriage,
First comes love, then comes marriage,
Then comes Rusty in a baby carriage.

WILDJOKER5
06-30-2014, 04:31 PM
Does the government send an army of police out to abduct you for using UPS or FedEx, instead of the US Postal Service? No? Then not only is your point invalid; it's obviously the stuff of conservative conspiracy theories... right along with FEMA concentration camps.US postal is compuslary. School is. And you will be locked up if you dont send your kids to school. You will be locked up if you dont pay you taxes too. So my point is very valid.


You're talking about winning over a customer. I'm not. Look at the private prison industry... paying off judges, jury members, attorneys, and police officers in order to get more convictions so they can fill up their prisons and get that money. Look at the oil industry, and how they've been engaging in price gouging for the past ten years. Look at how the restaurant industry wanted to get revenge on the American people because of Obamacare. I'm talking about shit like that.One, where does the prison system get their money from? Two, the oil industry is gouging prices? I thought that was called inflation and a necessity. Consider where the price of oil was for over 20 years. Or should I say the price of gas. But hey, if you feel the price of oil is too high, vote for someone that will get the keystone pipelines passed or more drilling on federal lands instead of being in bed with green activists cults. I dont even understand your last example, so I will leave it alone.


It happened in Romania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Mongolia, and dozens of other countries I haven't mentioned. What's Somalia's excuse?Its peaceful in those countries? I guess relatively speaking maybe, but I wouldnt put it at the top civilization. Sex trafficing and murder and economically, they still all prety much suck. Somalia, well, maybe because of global warming? Maybe because its their culture? Maybe because of numerous of other factors, but still not a great example as to show a libertarian mecca as you will. There have actually been many examples of libertarian governments thriving. One being the beginning of the US which had the money to pay down the debts they gathered from the revolution.


So tell me... what parts of government do you want then? Because all I've seen you discuss were the parts that you DON'T want.Central located Military stationed inside our boarders to protect the civilians from foreign invading armies. Thats about it for the federal level.


Dude... if you want to discuss the Mississippi gubernatorial primaries, start another thread. The point is, K-12 education was not compulsory there until 1981; and their students are among the worst academic performers because of it.
And you really think that has anything to do with it not being Compulsory? Really? 30 years of kids being forced to go through school and you still blame it on being a late start? Do you have any proof or facts to back up that claim? So whats the reason for the rest of the schools losing ground in world standings for educational level?

hustonj
06-30-2014, 06:52 PM
Most Federal Agencies today have a purely Progressive mission. Thier job is to provide for the people; to handle things so that the people don't have to. We justify the existence of these agencies by saying they meet the dictates of the US Constitution.

The US Constitution identifies that the Federal government is supposed to serve the STATES, that ultimate authority in our nation is supposed to reside with THE STATES and never indicates that the Federal government is supposed to directly serve the individual citizens at all. The closest it comes to doing so is in identifying that the Representatives will serve the interest of their constiuents. Remember that every power given to the Senate was a power being delegated to the representatives of the state governments . . ..

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constituion in order to ensure that we would understand the Federal government was to stay out of people's private lives and business. Progressive Federal Agencies violate that concept with their mission statements.

Every Progressive Federal Agency and program should be closed. As this would cause a huge wave of unemployment, the process needs to be handled in the same kind of incremental removal as was used to grow their existence. The cancer didn't show up over night, and minimizing the damage incident to removal is going to be no quicker.

Rusty have an aneurism, yet?

sandsjames
06-30-2014, 07:05 PM
Most Federal Agencies today have a purely Progressive mission. Thier job is to provide for the people; to handle things so that the people don't have to. We justify the existence of these agencies by saying they meet the dictates of the US Constitution.

The US Constitution identifies that the Federal government is supposed to serve the STATES, that ultimate authority in our nation is supposed to reside with THE STATES and never indicates that the Federal government is supposed to directly serve the individual citizens at all. The closest it comes to doing so is in identifying that the Representatives will serve the interest of their constiuents. Remember that every power given to the Senate was a power being delegated to the representatives of the state governments . . ..

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constituion in order to ensure that we would understand the Federal government was to stay out of people's private lives and business. Progressive Federal Agencies violate that concept with their mission statements.

Every Progressive Federal Agency and program should be closed. As this would cause a huge wave of unemployment, the process needs to be handled in the same kind of incremental removal as was used to grow their existence. The cancer didn't show up over night, and minimizing the damage incident to removal is going to be no quicker.

Rusty have an aneurism, yet?

Trying to remember when it changed from "United States" being plural (U.S. "are") to singular (U.S. "is").

efmbman
06-30-2014, 07:11 PM
I was at a dinner party once (true story!) and happened to be making small talk with an ACLU lawyer. Nice guy overall. What you stated about the Fed serving the states was the intent. His position was that since the states did not uniformly protect their citizens (deep south after reconstruction), the Fed did what the states would not do. The growth of those alphabet agencies came about because of that. Having to send troops to ensure minority students can attend school without being harrassed (or killed) sent a clear message to Washington DC that some states were simply not interested in upholding the Constitution or the amendments thereof. He made a decent case, and I have not heard a convincing counter-argument. Just a theory, but a darn good one in my opinion.

hustonj
06-30-2014, 08:31 PM
I was at a dinner party once (true story!) and happened to be making small talk with an ACLU lawyer. Nice guy overall. What you stated about the Fed serving the states was the intent. His position was that since the states did not uniformly protect their citizens (deep south after reconstruction), the Fed did what the states would not do. The growth of those alphabet agencies came about because of that. Having to send troops to ensure minority students can attend school without being harrassed (or killed) sent a clear message to Washington DC that some states were simply not interested in upholding the Constitution or the amendments thereof. He made a decent case, and I have not heard a convincing counter-argument. Just a theory, but a darn good one in my opinion.

All Progressive agendas are sold based on protecting someone, based on helping those who are incapable of doing things for themselves.

I find it interesting that he skips the whole supression of seccession issue, and the complete destruction of the conept that Federal authority derives from the States expressed when the Federal authority is used to prevent States from reclaiming their sovereignty. He drew the starting point at the typical "protection" sales line, choosing events that came AFTER the open display of Federal disdain for State sovereignty.

There was a great deal of Federal over-reach in and around our Civil War. The events leading up to the declerations of seccession and the military response from the Federal government clearly show that our Federal government had already gone off the rails by that point. This is a truth that a great many people refuse to consider.