# OT: Bush, the economy and health care



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/opinion/09KRUG.html

I thought this was an interesting chart because it portrays actual employment vs Bush's various projections. you kind of get the feeling they haven't a damned clue what will happen next, but they're absolutely sure it'll be good!

I never had much faith that tax cuts were the only (and best) way to jumpstart the economy. 

me and my wife are among the 40 million uninsured in this country because neither of our employers have decided to offer this benefit (I'm employed for only 30 hrs/week, and thereby ineligible.) in fact, a major reason my employer cites in not making new hires is that they don't want to add more cost to their health care plan. I suspect they're not alone. I often wonder if we would've created far more jobs by offering some form of national health service, taking that burden off of business and allowing them to invest that money in growing jobs. 

the only way I'm going to a doctor right now is if there's a catastrophic emergency. I'll go in for emergency care, which is drastically more expensive than preventative care, and the federal government will likely end up footing some of that bill. and that's why we have the most expensive health care system in the world. 

I think it's looking less likely that Bush will be re-elected. it's pretty rare that Americans maintain one party rule in the Senate, House and presidency. more than that, though, his administration appears to be exactly like his dad's: great at invading, lousy at economic issues.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Actually, most economists are pretty baffled by the Jobless recovery. I wouldn't attribute it to Bush's administration.

You do make some good points though.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Personally, I'd blame a good portion of the rising health care costs on the out-of-control malpractice suits trickling down.

Not to mention the poorly managed HMO's.

FWIW, thought -->This was kinda interesting...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Personally, I'd blame a good portion of the rising health care costs on the out-of-control malpractice suits trickling down.


my pops  is a doctor (Urologist). In 35 years of private practice he's never been sued, yet he pays well over 100G a year for malpractice insurance. Guess who's really paying that bill?

STOMP


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> my pops  is a doctor (Urologist). In 35 years of private practice he's never been sued, yet he pays well over 100G a year for malpractice insurance. Guess who's really paying that bill?
> ...


True, but if he didn't have to pay that amount every year he could buy a new car (paying a car dealer a conmission) or hire a person for whatever and still make a profit. It really is to bad that we have to spend money on things that might happen. Likfe is such a crap shoot isn't it?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "you kind of get the feeling they haven't a damned clue what will happen next, but they're absolutely sure it'll be good!


Unlike the Democrats, who don't have a clue what will happen next, either, but are desperately hoping that it is something bad. That way, they have a better chance of getting their man in the White House.



> "I never had much faith that tax cuts were the only (and best) way to jumpstart the economy."


The economy HAS been jumpstarted.The stock market, GDP, and other economic indicators are up. It just hasn't been reflected in job growth (yet).



> "me and my wife are among the 40 million uninsured in this country because neither of our employers have decided to offer this benefit"


Sounds like you need to get different jobs. 



> "I often wonder if we would've created far more jobs by offering some form of national health service."


Well, at least more jobs for bureaucrats in Washington.



> "we have the most expensive health care system in the world."


And the best. People come here from all over the world to be taken care of. That includes millions of illegal aliens who use our health care services for free. And that drives up the costs for the rest of us. 



> "I think it's looking less likely that Bush will be re-elected."


Perhaps, but there are still 8 months to go before the election. Lots of things could happen in 8 months. More jobs could be created. The stock market could go higher. Bin laden could be caught. Kerry could be exposed as a guy who doesn't know where he stands on an issue from one day to the next, etc. 



> "[Bush's] administration appears to be exactly like his dad's: great at invading, lousy at economic issues."


"Exactly like his dad's"? Bush the Elder didn't know how to finish off Saddam; Bush the Son did. Our 3-week invasion of Iraq set a new military standard for speed and efficiency. Bush the Son is giving 25 million Iraqis a chance at a new life. Bush the Elder didn't do anything for them.

On the economy, it's much more complicated than you are stating. We were already slipping into a Clinton recession when Bush took office, and then we suffered the most horrendous attack on our own shores in our history. On top of that, there was the dot.com bust, and the corporate scandals like Enron. This economy has been shaken in ways that are beyond any president's control. And yet, since 9/11, the U.S. economy has grown faster than any other in the world. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

Our healthcare system is not perfect but it is by far the best one out there. The last thing america needs is a gov't controlled healthcare.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> Our healthcare system is not perfect but it is by far the best one out there.


based on what?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> True, but if he didn't have to pay that amount every year he could buy a new car (paying a car dealer a conmission) or hire a person for whatever and still make a profit. It really is to bad that we have to spend money on things that might happen. Life is such a crap shoot isn't it?


As I stated before, those insurance costs are passed along to you the consumer. My Dad's profit margin would remain the same. 

A doctor friend of our family was served up one of those frivolous lawsuits where (believe me here) there was absolutely no basis at all of malpractice on his part... but on the remote possibility that it might be upheld by a jury, his insurance company pressured him to settle. If he had, it would essencially counted as a black mark on his record, and his rates would have doubled (which would have meant charging even higher rates). One more lawsuit after that, and he wouldn't have been able to purchase insurance at all and his career would be done.

Obviously there are examples of legitamate malpractice, and I'm all in favor of some consumer protection, but I'm just giving ABM's posted thoughts some backing that medical lawsuits are largely out of control in this day and age. 

STOMP


----------



## CrookedJ (May 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> Our healthcare system is not perfect but it is by far the best one out there. The last thing america needs is a gov't controlled healthcare.


Yeah heaven forbid!


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> 
> based on what?


Tell me if you have ever expierenced this at a US hospital



> On one recent day, emergency rooms in 23 of Toronto's 25 hospitals had to turn away ambulances -- and police officers had to shoot to death a distraught father who had taken a doctor hostage in an attempt to get treatment for his sick baby.





> In Winnipeg, "hallway medicine" has become so common that hallway stretcher locations have permanent numbers.





> Ambulances filled with ill patients have repeatedly stacked up this winter in the parking lot of Vancouver General Hospital, where an estimated 20 percent of patients in the midst of heart attacks must wait an hour or more for treatment.





> Waiting lists for surgery in some Canadian hospitals can stretch from months to as long as five years.


James Brooke, "Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South," New York Times, January 16, 2000. 

The amount of taxes they pay in canada is so much higher then what we pay in the states (I guess that could change if Hanoi Kerry is elected). I take pretty good care of myself I work out and don't smoke. I haven't seen a doctor in years why should I have to pay for the triple bypass surgery for the guy who is chain smoking mayonnaise tester and if I do need surgery some where done the road I don't want to wait 6 months for it.


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

I completely agree with Brian. The day that we have a national healthcare system in place is the day that quality healthcare will die.

ABM's spot on. Focus on way-out-of-control lawsuits. Put a cap on them--make it 1.5 or 2 million and you'll see drastic results. My father is a physician and he's seen his malpractice insurance go up 200% over the past 3 years and there hasn't been a lawsuit filed against his group in that span.

To quote the Eagles song:

"Let's kill all the lawyers, and kill 'em tonight!"


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

did you know that there are other countries in addition to the US and canada?


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> did you know that there are other countries in addition to the US and canada?


I know but I always hear from the socialists in this country like hillary clinton that canada's health care is what we should have.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Sweden has government health care and their system is among the best in the world. That doesn't mean it's a certainty that it would be preferable to do that here, but it CAN be the best method. I don't think there's any single-best option, or every developed nation would be doing it by now.

edit: Sweden's taxes are also much higher than ours, partly due to this. Maybe it's worth it to have a great health care system, maybe not.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>talman</b>!
> 
> "Let's kill all the lawyers, and kill 'em tonight!"


 

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think a simple solution to all of the US and Canadas problems would be to adopt Finnish as the national language. Obviously us English speaking countries have issues.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> I think a simple solution to all of the US and Canadas problems would be to adopt Finnish as the national language. Obviously us English speaking countries have issues



no mutta tämähän olisi loistava ratkaisu.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't think it's anything close to a certainty that we have the best health care system in the world. we have one of the shorter life expectancies among industrialized countries, although some of that can be attributed to our poor diet and our excessive work habits. 

we also have one of the very highest rates of infant mortality in the industrialized world, which is inexcusable any way you look at it. 

we spend more per capita on health care than ANY industrialized country despite having the most free-market based health care system in the world. 

we do have some of the most cutting edge pharmaceutical companies in the world (except in the area of stem cell research), which is at least in part due to our huge spending on health care. so it's not like it's all negative. 

I agree that lawsuits are a huge problem in health care but it's a cop out to say that without the suits health care would be affordable to everyone. 

incidentally, anyone who describes a decorated Viet Nam veteran like John Kerry as "Hanoi Kerry" is not only doing a huge disservice to Kerry, but is also effectively rendering any reasonable arguments he might make as irrelevant.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>:
> I think a simple solution to all of the US and Canadas problems would be to adopt Finnish as the national language. Obviously us English speaking countries have issues.


1. You don't speak English. You speak 'murcin.
2. The country that invented English has a National Health System that its citizens are so attached to that even Maggie "makes Bush look like Lenin" Thatcher didn't dare get rid of it.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

hey, I thought we were supposed to start talking Finnish...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theAutoEroticist</b>:
> we also have one of the very highest rates of infant mortality in the industrialized world, which is inexcusable any way you look at it.


But it's only POOR people who are dying, and isn't it actually a good thing for them to be put out of their misery earlier?



> we spend more per capita on health care than ANY industrialized country despite having the most free-market based health care system in the world.


And how much of that is Botox for Ann Coulter's freakishly smooth forehead?



> we do have some of the most cutting edge pharmaceutical companies in the world (except in the area of stem cell research), which is at least in part due to our huge spending on health care. so it's not like it's all negative.


Know what country is a world-leader in Biotech? 

Cuba. (Which also has one of the lowest illiteracy rates in the world.)

Guess what administration is _itching_ to accuse them of developing WMDs with that technology?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> 1. You don't speak English. You speak 'murcin.
> 2. The country that invented English has a National Health System that its citizens are so attached to that even Maggie "makes Bush look like Lenin" Thatcher didn't dare get rid of it.


No I type 'murcin I speak english quite well...Bob's your uncle...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> incidentally, anyone who describes a decorated Viet Nam veteran like John Kerry as "Hanoi Kerry" is not only doing a huge disservice to Kerry, but is also effectively rendering any reasonable arguments he might make as irrelevant.


excellent point... I'm open to anyone making sense, and I wish the Demos and Republicans would start making a practice of it. Right now I'm probably more against the religious right being in power then anything else. Those holy rollers deciding whats right and wrong for everyone else in this country based on their religious beliefs is completely unAmerican IMO.

Wasn't there some big bru-ha a couple weeks back where a doctored photo was put out showing Kerry and Fonda side by side back in the Vietnam era? Who exactly turned out to be responsible for that lame smear?

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by theAutoEroticist:


hey--I find nothing sexy about cars!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> hey--I find nothing sexy about cars!


I don't know have you seen the curves on that new Chevy? They obviously were inspired by J. Lo.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Know what country is a world-leader in Biotech?
> 
> Cuba. (Which also has one of the lowest illiteracy rates in the world.)"


Great country, Cuba. Wonder why people are always trying to escape from it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm pretty sure it won't be long til I see a post that pins Damons eratci shooting on his political affiliation, just for the sake of mud slinging at that particular party.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

Well, I can see yet another potentially productive discussion going to waste due to narrow-mindedness (i.e. Talkhard, Brian). For example...

Talkhard, you don't know **** about theWanker and why he and his wife are employed in jobs which they can't receive healthcare. Instead of asking why, you make an ignorant comment like, "Sounds like you need different jobs". Well, maybe there are circumstances that prevent that. Maybe theWanker and his wife aren't lazy or holding themselves back or whatever whatever. Maybe there is a legitimate excuse as to why he and his wife are in the position they are in, other than "it's their fault". Then again, it may be their fault. But by immediately blaming theWanker and his wife for the position they are in and placing responsibility on their shoulders, you're displaying ignorance. There are 40 million other people in this country that are in the position theWanker and his wife are in. Do you really think each and every person in this position created it for themselves? You sit here and tell theWanker that the economic situation is more complicated than he's making it while at the same time reducing his situation to "it looks like you need to find different jobs". Wake up and stop letting the rich white male perspective coming down from Washington think for you. Think for yourself. There's truth in everything. There's truth in things you've said and there's truth in things theWanker has said. But until people decide to take a step outside their perspective and look at things a different way, and look *critically* at issues, the same old blaming each other rhetoric will continue in this country, which is perpetuated by the educational system. And please, have some compassion. Even if theWanker and his wife have created the situation they are in just realize we're all human beings. We all make mistakes. Solving the problem has nothing to do with telling someone to get another job. 

And Brian, does the issue of US healthcare really have anything to do with other countries? Just because we have a better healthcare system than any other one out there (which is debate, by the way) doesn't mean our healtcare system is even good. Following that logic, that's like telling Jews who were in concentration camps that the particuliar one they are in isn't as brutal as the others, so quit *****ing and moaning. Or it's like saying a certain country has less people in poverty than any other country, so the system works. Well, there are still people in poverty and that's what the issue is. Healthcare isn't a competition. It's serious business and it affects real people. And who said the socialists were right? Who said we were right? Who said we had to go to some type of exclusive system? That just isn't the solution. Just because you don't agree with the socialist system doesn't mean there isn't truth in that system that could help improve the US system. And just because socialists don't agree with the US system doesn't mean there isn't truth in the US system that could help improve the socialist system. Stay away from this binary thinking. There is truth in everything everwhere. Trust me, I'm not advocating the totally open-minded, everything goes approach to the world but there's value in each and every thing. It's time for the citizens of the US to start thinking creatively, unlike we've been trained to do. Stop the binary thinking and stop the narrow-mindedness. Everything doesn't have to be black and white. If we let ourselves look critically at the current system and find the real flaws and benefits, than we can in turn look for creative and effective solutions to the problems. 

I'm not trying to slam anyone here, honestly. I'm not trying to act high and mighty either. I'm just sick of all this politic bull**** that goes on in the US. In fact, it's engrained in our society in general. Instead of looking for what's good in something, we automatically look for what's bad and throw the rest away. People cling to this binary political system and it's killing the country. Smaller political groups are automatically disregarded on the mere fact that some of their ideas are different. Well, things change and ideas evolve. We need to stop stuffing ourselves in these boxes that the government wants us to put ourselves in. Honestly, look at the history of who controls the country. It is overwhelmingly a rich, white, male. Is that a coincidence? More importantly, has it had an affect on our viewpoints in society? Look behind what you've been told, not to rebel, but to see if there's a different truth in things. Remember, the average human only uses 16% (something like that) of his or her brain. So instead of constantly reinforcing your perspective, your way of seeing things, take a look at the other side. That's the very least you can do and the worst thing that can happen is learning something different. I'm not talking about compromising what you belief or whatever. I'm talking about questioning what you believe and searching for the real truth in things beyond your perspective. Like I said, there's truth in everything and by viewing issues just from your perspective, you could be missing part of the truth.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> I don't think it's anything close to a certainty that we have the best health care system in the world. we have one of the shorter life expectancies among industrialized countries, although some of that can be attributed to our poor diet and our excessive work habits.
> 
> we also have one of the very highest rates of infant mortality in the industrialized world, which is inexcusable any way you look at it.
> ...


You saved me some typing. I was going to post basically the same argument.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Right now I'm probably more against the religious right being in power then anything else."


"The religious right" is a meaningless phrase often used by people who want to stir up fear and suspicion. It doesn't apply to any specific group of people, or organization, and it really has no clear definition. Rather it is used in the same way that McCarthy was accused of using the word "communist." All he had to do was point at someone and scream, "Communist!" and everyone was alarmed. 

George Bush, though a Christian (shocking!) is a moderate Republican in many ways. For example, he recently proposed additional spending for the National Endowment of the Arts, an institution that many in the so-called "religous right" would not approve of. He has also proposed a limited form of amnesty for illegal aliens, something that many Republicans are against. 

You can call him part of "the religious right" if you want to, but then you have to call Kerry part of the "godless atheistic left," since he subscribes to many tenets of liberalism that are intent on removing all traces of Christianity from public life. 



> "Those holy rollers deciding whats right and wrong for everyone else in this country based on their religious beliefs is completely unAmerican IMO."


So it's "unAmerican" to pass laws that reflect religious values? That would come as a surprise to our Founding Fathers, who believed that the principles of the Bible served as the foundation for society. You might be interested in this quote from the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1853:

_''[The Founding Fathers] had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.''_


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Great Post Rodney...


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> Well, I can see yet another potentially productive discussion going to waste due to narrow-mindedness (i.e. Talkhard, Brian). For example...
> 
> And Brian, does the issue of US healthcare really have anything to do with other countries? Just because we have a better healthcare system than any other one out there (which is debate, by the way) doesn't mean our healtcare system is even good. Following that logic, that's like telling Jews who were in concentration camps that the particuliar one they are in isn't as brutal as the others, so quit *****ing and moaning. Or it's like saying a certain country has less people in poverty than any other country, so the system works. Well, there are still people in poverty and that's what the issue is. Healthcare isn't a competition. It's serious business and it affects real people. And who said the socialists were right? Who said we were right? Who said we had to go to some type of exclusive system? That just isn't the solution. Just because you don't agree with the socialist system doesn't mean there isn't truth in that system that could help improve the US system. And just because socialists don't agree with the US system doesn't mean there isn't truth in the US system that could help improve the socialist system. Stay away from this binary thinking. There is truth in everything everwhere. Trust me, I'm not advocating the totally open-minded, everything goes approach to the world but there's value in each and every thing. It's time for the citizens of the US to start thinking creatively, unlike we've been trained to do. Stop the binary thinking and stop the narrow-mindedness. Everything doesn't have to be black and white. If we let ourselves look critically at the current system and find the real flaws and benefits, than we can in turn look for creative and effective solutions to the problems.


The reason I bring the canadian health care system up is because that is what a lot of the democrats want are system to be like. I agree the US system is not prefect but its a lot better than a universal health care system.



> So instead of constantly reinforcing your perspective, your way of seeing things, take a look at the other side. That's the very least you can do and the worst thing that can happen is learning something different. I'm not talking about compromising what you belief or whatever. I'm talking about questioning what you believe and searching for the real truth in things beyond your perspective. Like I said, there's truth in everything and by viewing issues just from your perspective, you could be missing part of the truth.


I did take a look at what universal health care offers. This is from Larryelder.com



> My seventy years old mother, who still lives in Canada, had surgery on October 18th 2002. She had been on a waiting list since May of 2000. Twice, she was called in the course of those 2 plus years, and told that within a few weeks she should expect a call from the hospital to come in to get her surgery. But each time she was left hanging. On the third time (2 years and 4 months later), she was finally admitted to the hospital. Because of her advanced age she had taken a private supplemental insurance to cover for a private room, and other things that aren't cover by the Canadian health care system (they don't cover everything). When they called her to come in she's put a request for a private room, and told the hospital that she would pay for it and have her insurance reimburse her later. They told her that it wouldn't be a problem. That's until she show up at the hospital, and was put in a room with another patient A MAN. When she told the nurse that she had requested a private room, the nurse told her; " you should feel lucky you could have been put in a room with 3 other patients" my Mom hesitated for a moment then the nurse told her; " if you don't like it there are 200 people on the waiting list, they'd be happy to take your spot, but you'll have to wait another 2 years." What were her options? Going to a different hospital? She didn't have a choice all hospitals are owned by the government, all nurses and doctors are hired by the government. My mother's experience is not a horror story, nor the exception, but the norm up there.
> 
> For people who think that socialize health care means we all have access to Cedar Sinai are being mislead. What it means is that we all have access to County USC. It also means that all hospitals will be reduced to county USC service and standard, including Cedar Sinai. In a socialist country doctors have to go and practice medicine wherever the government sees fit. Doctors who have refused assignments have been subpoena and brought to justice. Three doctors in the province of Quebec have pending cases, because they refused to do double shift. Not only were they asked to do a double shift, they were ask to do it at a different hospital than the one they are based at.


I'll stick with the US system.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> "The religious right" is a meaningless phrase often used by people who want to stir up fear and suspicion. It doesn't apply to any specific group of people, or organization, and it really has no clear definition. Rather it is used in the same way that McCarthy was accused of using the word "communist." All he had to do was point at someone and scream, "Communist!" and everyone was alarmed. [/I]


Here ya go... derive whatever meaning you might from US Senators living in housing that is paid for by secretive religious groups.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=The_Fellowship

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

great points, Rodney and STOMP. 

it seems like politics has become so true/false, left/right, right/wrong that people can't even discuss the issues of the day without grossly oversimplifying anything that doesn't fit neatly into one of two ideologies. 

as for my own circumstances, my wife works as a contractor for a tiny internet company that did us a huge favor by hiring her illegally when she didn't have documentation when she first arrived here from England. (she's legal now.) she could quit and find a worse paying, menial job with benefits, but I don't blame her for not wanting to. we owe them a lot, leaving them in a lurch would be brutal for that company, and she happens to like what she does. 

I've got a nice paying job that allows me to work out of my home. unemployment here in Boise is horrible, and I don't want to have to find a new job. I've been working with the same employer for 7 years and I love my job. 

I've looked at paying for insurance out of pocket, but it's just too expensive. there just aren't a lot of options for us, other than one of us quitting a great job.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Register a PO box n Canada and use your wifes native English tie to Canada as grounds for healthcare in Canada....I'm not sure it would work, but it may be worth a shot. If the Doctor's office asks why you have Idaho plates on your car tell them that the auto headlights went out on your car and you are borrowing your dads, who hapopens to live in idaho, eh.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Well, I can see yet another potentially productive discussion going to waste due to narrow-mindedness (i.e. Talkhard, Brian)"


Real nice, RTR. Start off by accusing the other side of "narrow-mindedness." That's a surefire way to get our respect. 



> "There are 40 million other people in this country that are in the position theWanker and his wife are in. Do you really think each and every person in this position created it for themselves?"


I was recently one of those 40 million people. I left my job and worked from home for almost 2 years and had no health insurance. And (gasp!) I survived. I did just fine, as a matter of fact. You have to realize also that the 40 million figure includes people who have left old jobs for new jobs. In other words, they are only temporarily without health insurance. With the great mobility in this country, a great many people are between jobs at any one time. 

Health insurance is a nice thing. I would rather have it than not. But the fact is, health insurance is less of a necessity when a person is taking care of his health. Diabetes and heart disease are 2 big killers in this country, and a major reason for many doctor visits and prescription drugs, and yet both are almost 100% preventable. All you have to do is exercise and eat right. But in this country, we think it's our right to abuse our bodies and then have a doctor "fix us up" with a prescription medicine. 



> "Wake up and stop letting the rich white male perspective coming down from Washington think for you."


Wake up, yourself! The very idea that there is something wrong with being rich white and male is a narrow and racist perspective. But apart from that, my personal opinion is mine. It is gleaned from my education, my reading, and many discussions like this one. I won't insult you as you have me, and say that you got your ideas from some race-baiting demogogue like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. 



> "Honestly, look at the history of who controls the country. It is overwhelmingly a rich, white, male. Is that a coincidence?"


Is WHAT a coincidence? This has been a mainly white country for its whole existence. I fail to see how white people being in power is any big surprise. As for those people being male, that is hardly unusual, either. Every country in the world is run by men. Or have you missed this small fact? Are these men often wealthy? Yes. Wealth is usually the reward of hard work, discipline, and intelligence. Those are the traits you also want in leaders.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

> politic bull**** that goes on in the US. In fact, it's engrained in our society in general.


ouch. You better thank that politic bull**** because it's what makes this country so great.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> Well, I can see yet another potentially productive discussion going to waste...


Too true. 

I don't know if it's narrow-mindedness so much as obvious foot-stomping on behalf of George Bush and Republicans. The personal attacks against Wanker and then, John Kerry, were unnecessary. 

I think its pretty ****ing pathetic.

Stuart


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Actually I think there has been plenty of ANti Bush representation here too. 

Politics are sick and disgusting. No one politician has the good of the people in mind, only the good of what will get them the most pat's on their backs from other politicians. Check vote results in the senate, what percentage are "Party Line" votes? 

Give me a break do these plastic people actually think for themselves? I don't give a rip Democrat republican, they are all a bunch of cookie cutter smiles who raise their hand when their peers raise theirs. 

Who was the last real president?

BTW the sad thing is we have the best system in the world.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Here ya go... derive whatever meaning you might from US Senators living in housing that is paid for by secretive religious groups."


Pick your poison. Lots of Democrats are funded by corrupt Labor Unions, the NEA, and Trial Lawyers. Clinton took campaign contributions from Chinese communists who then fled the country and refused to testify. Every candidate is backed by some kind of special interest group. 

But even so, the link you provided doesn't prove that the "religious right" is running the country.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think we'd a hell of a lot better off with a majority of fence sitters.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

If the religious right is in control then how come the religious sector is constantly complaining of the absence of God in politics and the dily operation of our country. How come religious groups feel that they are not allowed to display their religion in work places, government offices and schools?

IT's just BS mudslinging. It's easier to make the other party look bad than to make yourself look good.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I can see yet another potentially productive discussion going to waste...


Discussions are "productive" only when there is lively disagreement. If everyone thought the same way, there would be no real discussion.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "If the religious right is in control then how come the religious sector is constantly complaining of the absence of God in politics and the dily operation of our country. How come religious groups feel that they are not allowed to display their religion in work places, government offices and schools?
> 
> IT's just BS mudslinging. It's easier to make the other party look bad than to make yourself look good."


Exactly. Democrats hate Bush so much that they have been stirring up all kinds of hateful things about his and Ashcroft's religious beliefs, hoping to convince Americans that the country is being run by a bunch of religious zealots out to steal all of our civil liberties.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Discussions are "productive" only when there is lively disagreement.


"Disagreements" are fine.

I just want to know what your definition of "lively" is.

Stuart


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Exactly. Democrats hate Bush so much that they have been stirring up all kinds of hateful things about his and Ashcroft's religious beliefs, hoping to convince Americans that the country is being run by a bunch of religious zealots out to steal all of our civil liberties.


Ashcroft is trying to steal my liberties. 

Shortly after becoming Attorney General, John Ashcroft was headed abroad. An advance team showed up at the American embassy in the Hague to check out the digs, saw cats in residence, and got nervous. They were worried there might be a calico cat. No, they were told, no calicos. Visible relief. Their boss, they explained, believes calico cats are signs of the devil. (The advance team also spied a statue of a naked woman in the courtyard and discussed the possibility of its being covered for the visit, though that request was not ultimately made.)

I reveal this tidbit not to belittle John Ashcroft’s faith or his prudishness, which are his own business, but because he has begun to meddle with my business.

In the middle of the war on terrorism, he has somehow found time to move to overturn Oregon's twice-passed referendum on assisted suicide, to assure that an Oregonian in his final days should be forced to agonize as God intended. 

Likewise, for those nauseous with chemotherapy or in chronic pain, he works to overturn California’s referendum on medical marijuana, because – when you think of it – what right have the people of California to decide a matter of such importance for themselves? Where in the constitution does it permit people the right to grow or smoke whatever they want, even if it will ease their chronic pain?

http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/011120.html


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly. Democrats hate Bush so much that they have been stirring up all kinds of hateful things about his and Ashcroft's religious beliefs, hoping to convince Americans that the country is being run by a bunch of religious zealots out to steal all of our civil liberties.


BTW IMO the political mudslinging goes both ways.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Pick your poison. Lots of Democrats are funded by corrupt Labor Unions, the NEA, and Trial Lawyers. Clinton took campaign contributions from Chinese communists who then fled the country and refused to testify. Every candidate is backed by some kind of special interest group.
> ...


Give me a break. George sites his faith and paints his opponents as evil. He wanted to call the gulf war a crusade. He sites his religious views as why he comes out against many issues like stem cell research. Check out where his funding is coming from. Smoke comes from fire. 

Pick your poison is an apt description of my choises. Lots of Demos are funded by the same currupting influences... some live in the very same housing that is funded those religious zealots... it says so if you dig further into my link. Apparently you just scanned it or I'm sure you would have noticed before discounting it. I find the info in there just chilling.

The "religious right" is more closely afiliated with the Republicans, but politicians on both sides take their money, use their influence, and further their social agenda blending church and state without being up front about it. IMO, the special interest/lobbying system we have now is all about corruption. I wish I had a choise in the upcoming election, but as I see it, it'll be the SOS no matter who is elected. 

The last 3 elections I've voted for Perot twice and then Nader. Obviously I didn't vote for those guys strickly on their political views as they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but I do want a real choise sometime in my lifetime. I may vote for Kerry on this upcoming one because George is so completely opposite on the issues I deem most important like the environment and the world's out of control population. I'd also like to have a President who isn't a dolt. Thats my impression of W nearly every time I hear him speak.

STOMP


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> Sweden has government health care and their system is among the best in the world. That doesn't mean it's a certainty that it would be preferable to do that here, but it CAN be the best method. I don't think there's any single-best option, or every developed nation would be doing it by now.
> 
> edit: Sweden's taxes are also much higher than ours, partly due to this. Maybe it's worth it to have a great health care system, maybe not.


The difference is that if you look at Sweden as a whole, they:

(A) don't have the population we have
(B) don't have the same percentage of loafers we have
(C) don't have the same number of people who would exploit the system.

Sweden, I think, has a tax rate of around 60-70% too. 

It can work for smaller countries, but would bankrupt the states within ten years.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Ashcroft is trying to steal my liberties.


But you forgot the worst offenses:

The Patriot Act (and his strong-arming it through)

and his recent claim that he needs records from abortion clinics, thus denying the right to privacy.

It's bull. 

It's scary.

If it keeps up ... I'm moving to Italy.

Play.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Sweden, I think, has a tax rate of around 60-70% too.


actually, it's about 45-60%...

http://www.sweden.se/templates/FactSheet____3927.asp


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Personally, I'd blame a good portion of the rising health care costs on the out-of-control malpractice suits trickling down.
> 
> Not to mention the poorly managed HMO's.
> ...


whaddya know, a voice of reason.


the federal gov't offering universal health insurance? Talk about catastrophic...you can just head to Canada to see what that's like. From my business dealings with Canadians I've learned that many types of procedures and even routine service is a month or two wait period. And to fund it, the federal gov't in Canada is taking almost 50 cents on the dollar for income tax. I'm not sure I'm ready for gov't dominated socialism in the US yet. They can't even do contracts for toilet seats in the military well, why would I want them responsible for health care.

when we put a limit on the amount of damages that health providers can suffer in lawsuits to reasonable amounts I think the cost of health care will stabilize or even decline. As it is the main reason health care has gone up about 500% the last 5 years is due to insurance premiums going up astronomically and also preferred providers limiting the dollars a doctor can recieve in compensation for normal procedures. Now many doctors have a cap on their upper income potential and young students that otherwise might have sought a career as a doctor are just as likely to go into law, computer tech, engineering or business. You have a shrinking doctor base combined with increased costs. the natural law of supply and demand is at work here.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Lots of Canadians come across the border to get their health care in places like Seattle. I was amazed to learn, a few years ago, that there are more MRI machines in Seattle than there are in all of Canada.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "George sites his faith . . . "


Shocking! What is this country coming to when a President can say he is a Christian! 

You'll probably also be shocked to learn that President Lincoln spent much time in prayer about the Civil War. And in 1898, President McKinley said that intervention in Cuba would fulfill American aspirations as a “Christian, peace-loving people.” More recently, President Carter invoked Christian principles frequently when explaining his polices. All these Christian presidents operating right under our noses. How did they ever get away with it?



> ". . . and paints his opponents as evil."


I think you're confused. He used the term "evil" for the vicious thugs who seized commercial airplanes full of innocent Americans and flew them into buildings full of more innocent Americans.

He called his opponent Ted Kennedy "a great American."



> "[Bush] sites his religious views as why he comes out against many issues like stem cell research"


So what? Some presidents make policy decisions based on principles that their mother taught them. Others decide policy based on racial or social injustices that they witnessed as a child. Hillary Clinton said she "communed" with the spirit of a dead Eleanor Roosevelt for advice. The fact that Bush is influenced by his religious views is hardly shocking, except perhaps to people who think none of us should have religious views.



> "I'd also like to have a President who isn't a dolt."


I know what you mean. That's the way I felt when we had a president who wasn't even smart enough to keep his pants on in the Oval Office.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> The difference is that if you look at Sweden as a whole, they:
> ...


true, that's pretty much my take on it as well. Sweden as a whole struck me as being incredibly efficient, on a governmental AND personal level, when I visited. I don't think we could pull off their system here and it would likely be a disastrous attempt, especially right now. I was just pointing out that a government-run/socialized health care system CAN be an excellent program if it's done right, and under the right conditions. I don't know if either is possible here in the near future. And the idea of the tax rate spiking up to pay for such a program, well, I can't say I'm thrilled with that idea either. Blah. :|


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "In the middle of the war on terrorism, [Ashcroft] has somehow found time to move to overturn Oregon's twice-passed referendum on assisted suicide"


So in a war on terrorism, our Attorney General is supposed to ignore every other legal issue in the country?

Personally, I think suicide is a pretty major step. If you really want to take your own life, you can find a way to do it. And you should. You shouldn't be asking for other people's help. 

However, I don't know what that issue has to do with calico cats and statues of naked women. Unless you were just throwing those in there to help discredit Ashcroft.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> hey, I thought we were supposed to start talking Finnish...


Okei, mistä puhuisimme?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blowhard</b>:
> So in a war on terrorism, our Attorney General is supposed to ignore every other legal issue in the country?


No, just the ones he has no business butting in on. And this is the Attorney General who pretty much ignored terrorism (despite the urgent briefings of his predecessor) in his zeal to fight the use of medical marijuana. But then 9/11 happened and "the world changed"...



> Personally, I think suicide is a pretty major step.


Inciteful of you. Reminds me of the lyric from that song they made of the M*A*S*H theme: 
"Suicide is painless
It brings on many changes"

I always thought that was dumb. 



> If you really want to take your own life, you can find a way to do it. And you should. You shouldn't be asking for other people's help.


This is so mindbogglingly stupid I just hold it up for a second for all to admire. I'll be sure to tell all those people who are paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated to get on with it on your advice.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> 
> The reason I bring the canadian health care system up is because that is what a lot of the democrats want are system to be like. I agree the US system is not prefect but its a lot better than a universal health care system.
> ...


Again, Brian, there's nothing wrong with you thinking the US system is the best thing out there. But does that mean there aren't flaws in the system? Does that mean we can't search those flaws out and do something about them? That's all I'm saying, really.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

personally don't think there should be any law for or against suicide. However, I don't think that having a doctor inject you with lethal drugs is suicide. Suicide is when you (the individual) take your own life (assuming that means solo, without the aid of someone else). When someone else helps you die, to me that's not suicide, its something else. What it is is a grey area to me, but its not suicide. I don't like it, but then I'm not voting one way or the other. If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll find a way to get the job done. Do I think a doctor "putting someone down" is suicide? No, its more like euthenasia on your pet. I guess on the one hand it can be perceived as humane, but then humans aren't pets are they?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> This is so mindbogglingly stupid I just hold it up for a second for all to admire. I'll be sure to tell all those people who are paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated to get on with it on your advice.


There are exceptions to everything. If a person is paralyzed and wants to die, perhaps a specific law is needed that allows them to seek assistance to do this. 

But the point is, the government should not be making suicide an easy option for the average elderly or sick person. People with grave diseases sometimes get so despondent that they want to die, but don't realize that this feeling may be only temporary, and that they may in fact recover from their illness. We shouldn't be standing by with someone to help them die just because they feel like doing it at 2 pm on Wednesday. 

In Michigan, most of Kevorkian's patients were people who could have taken their own lives if they so chose (with sleeping pills, a gun to the head, etc.). The point I'm making is that, if you don't have the courage to end your life with your own hand, the government shouldn't be offering to do it for you.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> 
> actually, it's about 45-60%...
> ...



and that's acceptable?

i think the highest tax bracket in the US is like 38-42%, and that's a lot. One thing that bugged me when I had a jump in income many years ago was how much more I paid in taxes, my net income wasn't that much better. 

I can't imagine paying more in taxes than I already do now. I have the fed, the state, FICA, property, local, plus all the embedded taxes on everyday consumables, not to mention phone service, cable, water, gas, electric, sewage taxes etc...Then you take out your 401k, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, car payment, mortgage payment, food, gas, diapers etc...after each paycheck I figure I got about $1.65 left over.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> There are exceptions to everything. If a person is paralyzed and wants to die, perhaps a specific law is needed that allows them to seek assistance to do this.


Great idea - we could call it "the assisted suicide law".



> But the point is, the government should not be making suicide an easy option for the average elderly or sick person. People with grave diseases sometimes get so despondent that they want to die, but don't realize that this feeling may be only temporary, and that they may in fact recover from their illness. We shouldn't be standing by with someone to help them die just because they feel like doing it at 2 pm on Wednesday.


Do you know anything about what you're talking about? What do you think this law involves? A hotline that you can call 24/7 and have someone run out and hold a pillow over your face? Don't you think Doctors might have <i>some</i> inkling of the difference between a temporarily despondent person and someone who has rationally decided to end her or his life? And who's this "we"? Presumably your version of the law has the government conscripting random people to go and off depressed people.



> In Michigan, most of Kevorkian's patients were people who could have taken their own lives if they so chose (with sleeping pills, a gun to the head, etc.).


Oh really. Well having seen your expert knowledge on other issues, I don't think I'll just be taking that one on your say-so.
But anyway, you might note that Kevorkian was in _Michigan_, which does not have an assisted suicide law. Perhaps if there _had_ been, there would have been more checks and balances on what he did. 




> The point I'm making is that, if you don't have the courage to end your life with your own hand,


So now everyone has to strangle themselves? Or perhaps choke on their own fingers? Or maybe you mean "<b>by</b> your own hand". Hard to know given the other stuff you come out with.



> ...the government shouldn't be offering to do it for you.


Perhaps if we had that socialized medicine you think is so terrible "the government" would be offering to do it. But as far as I'm aware, the government has nothing to do with assisted suicide. Or are we back to the conscripted death squads of your imagination?

Incidentally, are you in favour of capital punishment? Now that's a case where the government is more than willing to help people commit suicide, willingly or not. Knowing full well that some of them will be innocent.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!





> Real nice, RTR. Start off by accusing the other side of "narrow-mindedness." That's a surefire way to get our respect.


You are being narrow-minded. Sorry. 





> I was recently one of those 40 million people. I left my job and worked from home for almost 2 years and had no health insurance. And (gasp!) I survived. I did just fine, as a matter of fact. You have to realize also that the 40 million figure includes people who have left old jobs for new jobs. In other words, they are only temporarily without health insurance. With the great mobility in this country, a great many people are between jobs at any one time.


First of all, good for you and congratulations. Second of all, I'd like to see the true statistical breakdown of why these people are uninsured. You can't tell me all of it, probably not even the majority (especially due to the recent downturn in the economy), is due to people being between jobs. I agree that it's part of the explanation but it just doesn't present the whole picture. 





> Health insurance is a nice thing. I would rather have it than not. But the fact is, health insurance is less of a necessity when a person is taking care of his health. Diabetes and heart disease are 2 big killers in this country, and a major reason for many doctor visits and prescription drugs, and yet both are almost 100% preventable. All you have to do is exercise and eat right. But in this country, we think it's our right to abuse our bodies and then have a doctor "fix us up" with a prescription medicine.


Well, this is exactly why I think you're narrow-minded. Why don't you tell someone living in poverty working 60 hours a week to get him/herself and her family by to "just eat right and exercise". Why don't you tell even middle-class people who have to work their asses off to stay afloat "just to eat right and exercise". You should considered yourself blessed that you can "just eat right and exercise". This is why I think you're narrow-minded on this issue. Eating right and exercising doesn't come as easy to some as it does others. When you're just trying to get by in life you don't have the time to worry about things like that. On top of that, a lot of people are completely uneducated on these issues which could be attributed to many different factors. Look at the broader picture here. It's more complicated than you're making it. 

As for diabetes and heart disease being almost 100% preventable, you're right. But they are only 100 percent preventable under certain circumstances. Again, everyone doesn't have the same access to exercise, correct dieting, education on these matters, etc. Also, I urge you to go read some things about diabetes in the minority community. Why are minorities, particularily the African-American community, at a higher risk of getting diabetes than whites? Instead of telling you these things, this is an opportunity for you to look at a different perspective and expand your mind. Again, some of the reasons go beyond the individual. 

That said, you have a very strong point as to taking a vested interest in your own health and prevention. I'm sure medical costs could be greatly reduced if people were more active in their own health. Health awareness and disease prevention is certainly a huge solution in the problem of healtcare in this country. 




> Wake up, yourself! The very idea that there is something wrong with being rich white and male is a narrow and racist perspective. But apart from that, my personal opinion is mine. It is gleaned from my education, my reading, and many discussions like this one. I won't insult you as you have me, and say that you got your ideas from some race-baiting demogogue like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.


Please don't put words in my mouth. First of all, I never said there is anything wrong with being rich, white, and a male. I simply said throughout our history, this perspective has been imposed on our society and that is grounds for taking a closer look into the issue. Don't take my word for it. Go find out for yourself. 

And I wasn't so much saying that you got your ideas from rich, white males as much as I'm saying you need to be aware of the prevailing perspective in this society. All I'm saying is think for yourself, and saying things like "heart disease and diabetes is almost 100% preventable" as an excuse as to why our healthcare system is a mess does not implicate independent and critical thinking on your part and I think it's an implication of "rich, white male" syndrome. I'm not saying all rich, white males are the same way but I do think there has been a huge influence on our society from the group in general. And as for Jesse Jackson and Al, I know they have their problems but do you actually know anything about them? You calling them race-baiting demagogues leads me to believe you're just following the crowd on this issue, too. Again, just because they aren't 100% good doesn't mean they are 100% bad. There's truth in everything. Go read about these guys and learn something about their history before you judge them. 






> Is WHAT a coincidence? This has been a mainly white country for its whole existence. I fail to see how white people being in power is any big surprise. As for those people being male, that is hardly unusual, either. Every country in the world is run by men. Or have you missed this small fact


I don't understand your point here but that may be due to the fact that I didn't make my own point clear. That's my bad. What I'm saying is *what* exactly does it mean that rich, white males have run this country? What kind of effect has that had on this society? This country has not been a mainly white cuontry for its whole existence, either. Whites are very close to being population-wise minorities at this point, yet white people still control the vast majority of power and wealth in this country. Why is that? Again, drop your personal opinions and go take a critical approach to the matter. You might be surprised at what you find out. 



> ? Are these men often wealthy? Yes. Wealth is usually the reward of hard work, discipline, and intelligence. Those are the traits you also want in leaders.


If you want to attribute wealth pertaining to this country as a reward of hard work, discipline, and intelligence you also need to attribute it as a reward to brutality, ignorance, dishonesty, and exploitation. Don't believe me? Go ask the Native Americans and go ask the blacks. Look at how these two groups played a big part in developing the wealth-base of the nation. Sorry, but not every rich, white male is rich because of hard work, discipline, and intelligence. A lot of it has to do with the history of this country. I'm certainly not saying that every rich, white male is brutal, ignorant, dishonest, and exploitive and neither am I saying that all of them aren't hard working, disciplined, and intelligent. But if you honestly believe wealth is "usually" a product of these three things, at least as it pertains to this country, you're not seeing the whole picture. Go look at the history of this country and how it's effected our present day economic situation and you'll see what I'm talking about. 


Talkhard, you're obviously an intelligent person. I can tell you are. You're probably more intelligent than I am. But rather than falling in line with popular thought, things you've been taught in the education system, and things the government has told you why dont' you, as an intelligent and inependently thinking individual go search for some answers yourself. You see, societies aren't necessarily based on truths. Much of what any society beliefs is socially constructed, taken from a certain perspective. Unfortunately in the US, we assume our social constructions are all true. All I'm saying is instead of assuming everything we've been told is true, let's try to step outside our perspective and look at things critically. I hate to see a perfectly intelligent mind like yours partially blinded to truth because you, like everyone else in this country, has been funnelled to look at things from a narrow-minded persepctive. Just open your mind up some, that's all.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> 
> 
> ouch. You better thank that politic bull**** because it's what makes this country so great.


*In your opinion* this country is great. I don't think it is. And when I say political bull****, I'm mostly talking about the Democratic vs. Republic mudslinging that constantly goes on. And if you're telling me Democrats and Republicans represent a broad scope of political ideals, you're wrong. It goes back the whole idea of a narrow minded perspective being the axis by which this country is controlled and influenced. For me, the political bull**** that has gone on in this country has been more damaging than anything else.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Actually I think there has been plenty of ANti Bush representation here too.
> 
> Politics are sick and disgusting. No one politician has the good of the people in mind, only the good of what will get them the most pat's on their backs from other politicians. Check vote results in the senate, what percentage are "Party Line" votes?
> ...


Fo sho.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Discussions are "productive" only when there is lively disagreement. If everyone thought the same way, there would be no real discussion.


Don't put words in my mouth. I never said there couldnt' be disagreement. I'm simply saying disagreement on the basis of ignorance is a problem. I don't want everyone to think the same but I'd rather disagree with an open minded person than an ignorant one.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> true, that's pretty much my take on it as well. Sweden as a whole struck me as being incredibly efficient, on a governmental AND personal level, when I visited. I don't think we could pull off their system here and it would likely be a disastrous attempt, especially right now. I was just pointing out that a government-run/socialized health care system CAN be an excellent program if it's done right, and under the right conditions. I don't know if either is possible here in the near future. And the idea of the tax rate spiking up to pay for such a program, well, I can't say I'm thrilled with that idea either. Blah. :|


But at least you're taking a different look at things. Sure, an *exact * replication of the system in Sweden probably wouldn't work here but there are elements in that system that could improve ours.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth. I never said there couldnt' be disagreement. I'm simply saying disagreement on the basis of ignorance is a problem. I don't want everyone to think the same but I'd rather disagree with an open minded person than an ignorant one.



using the terms "narrow minded" and "ignorant" to characterize those you disagree with just shows me and everyone else with half a brain (even ignorant people) that you personally view your own opinion above others whom you disagree with and therefore have no problem being narrow minded yourself when dismissing them as ignorant.


congrats, you've come full circle in the world of politics and hypocrisy.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> using the terms "narrow minded" and "ignorant" to characterize those you disagree with just shows me and everyone else with half a brain (even ignorant people) that you personally view your own opinion above others whom you disagree with and therefore have no problem being narrow minded yourself when dismissing them as ignorant.


He also called TH obviously intelligent and probably more intelligent then himself... I agree that the ignorant and narrow minded comments were slights and probably too harsh for a debate on our quality chatsite, but at least he made nice before you felt the need to call him a hypocrite.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

btw, though I've enjoyed parts of this thread, it's just screaming for the wisdom of barfo... where has our wise sage gone?

STOMP


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> He also called TH obviously intelligent and probably more intelligent then himself... I agree that the ignorant and narrow minded comments were slights and probably too harsh for a debate on our quality chatsite, but at least he made nice before you felt the need to call him a hypocrite.
> ...



i called him a hypocrite because in calling his foes narrow minded and ignorant, he showed the same disdain and intolerance (or lack of "open mindedness", however you want to characterize it) that he himself was decrying earlier. All I did was use his own words as proof.

besides, giving someone a compliment then belittling their opinion as ignorant is like saying your girlfiend is pretty cute except she's a fat ho.


----------



## Flaming Homer (Jan 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> ...
> Health insurance is a nice thing. I would rather have it than not. But the fact is, health insurance is less of a necessity when a person is taking care of his health. Diabetes and heart disease are 2 big killers in this country, and a major reason for many doctor visits and prescription drugs, and yet both are almost 100% preventable. All you have to do is exercise and eat right. But in this country, we think it's our right to abuse our bodies and then have a doctor "fix us up" with a prescription medicine.
> ...


This is simply not true, the genetic disposition is a major factor for heart disease, for example. You cannot cure this with right eating or exercise. Same with diabetes, there are different types of diabetes. The one (Type II) you get when you're getting older you can prevent or cure with a diet, that's right. But there are other types (Type I) of diabetes you can't prevent with a diet, for example.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> i called him a hypocrite because in calling his foes narrow minded and ignorant, he showed the same disdain and intolerance (or lack of "open mindedness", however you want to characterize it) that he himself was decrying earlier. All I did was use his own words as proof.


Hypothetically, if you call a racist "narrow-minded" or "ignorant," are you being intolerant because you don't tolerate his/her intolerance?

There's this recent belief that no one is "narrow-minded," we all just have different opinions, and calling someone "narrow-minded" is automatically narrow-minded, itself, and thus hypocritical.

That can be true. There's also the possibility that one side *is* being narrow-minded, like my hypothetical of dealing with a racist, in which case it is not hypocritical to apply that label.

You didn't really provide any reasoning as to why RoddneyThaRippa was *wrong* in calling TalkHard "narrow-minded." You simply tried to use a generalization that just applying the label, itself, was narrow-minded, invalidating what he said. But, as I said, that's not *always* the case. So you'd need to show that it *is* the case in this instance.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Okei, mistä puhuisimme?


 

olen sanaton...



> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> and that's acceptable?
> 
> i think the highest tax bracket in the US is like 38-42%, and that's a lot. One thing that bugged me when I had a jump in income many years ago was how much more I paid in taxes, my net income wasn't that much better.


I don't think that's acceptable. I just liked to point out that 70% was bit much... but I believe that the swedes get a bit more out of that 60% than health care. at least that's the way here in Finland.

I myself would have trouble paying over 50% of my income in taxes. where I live, that's a possibility in the future (58% is the highest)...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

RTR...

I think you're making some really great points in this thread. 

That said, as has been mentioned, I don't think the labels you're throwing out there on people are productive to your stated goal.

If you're trying to get people to open up their viewpoints, you can't include insults as a part of the package, whether you think they are apt or not.

Think about it this way, if you were fairly set upon a particular viewpoint and someone was trying to show you an alternate way of thinking - how long would you listen to them if they called you "ignorant" or "narrow-minded" because of your belief. 

It's an open invitation for the person you're appealing to to disregard anything of worth that you've said.

Please don't take this the wrong way, just trying to hook ya up...

Cheers


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, if you call a racist "narrow-minded" or "ignorant," are you being intolerant because you don't tolerate his/her intolerance?
> ...


Thanks for coming to my rescue, Minstrel. I couldn't have defended myself any better. 

Following the logic Minstrel is giving, I really don't think I'm being hypocritical. Why? Because I honestly think talkhard is being ignorant and narrow-minded and I'm not meaning to use those terms in an insultive way (although I probably should have clarified that). Hell, I'm ignorant about some things too. *Everyone* is, to varying extents. The fact that talkhard spoke of diabetes as mostly 100% preventable showed some of his ignorance on the subject. And although I probably came across in a negative way, I honestly wasn't trying to criticize or judge talkhard. I was simply saying there's a different way to look at the issue and the fact that he wasn't looking at the other perspectives, making him narrow-minded in this issue. I don't blame anyone for being ignorant. I'm sure there are things I'm completely ignorant about that talkhard is not. My whole point is that instead of getting tied up in what society, the government, political affiliations, etc. have told us, it's important to step outside all of that and take a critical look at things. And part of that process is taking a look at different perspectives. It all goes back to the "is the glass half-empty or half full" logic. Two people can look at the very same situation and see two completely different things which can both be completely valid. That's all I'm saying. 

talkhard, 

if you felt like I was criticizing you I'm sorry. That's really not what I was trying to do. I just don't want another perfectly intelligent mind like yours taken advantage of by the lies in our society. At the very least, just consider what I'm saying. That's all I ask. I don't claim to be some prophet or highly enlightened person. I'm simply saying there's valuing to opening one's mind up to different perspectives.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> RTR...
> 
> I think you're making some really great points in this thread.
> ...


Thanks for the hookup and I understand what you're saying. Honestly, I'm not a very good communicator and that often confuses people when I write or speak. I wasn't calling talkhard ignorant and narrow-minded so much because of his beliefs, but because of the way he is viewing those situations. Also, I didn't intend those words to be used as insults or labels or whatever (see Minstrel's post). I did completely lose sight of the fact that nine times out of ten these days, those words are used as insults and labels or whatever and that's my bad. I definitely agree with your point and I'll try to make more posts more clear in the future.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yeah, sometimes it comes down to semantics...

All ignorance really means is a lack of knowledge in a particular subject, but it has a very negative connotation because people often use it to deride someone personally.

It's a tough problem. I think that if you really want to have people of opposing viewpoints listen to your arguments, you have to be a diplomat at times.

It's something you see a lot of on the board, I think. Posters will often carelessly throw out words that can be construed in an insulting way. Nine times out of ten, if the two people are disagreeing about something, the other person is going to take it as an insult whether it was intended or not. It serves as a great defense mechanism actually...

Anyway, the only reason I brought this up with you specifically, Roddney, was because you sounded very sincere that you wanted to get through to people on this issue and it seemed like you got tripped up in the mucky muck...

Cheers


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

null


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming to my rescue, Minstrel. I couldn't have defended myself any better.
> ...


to summarize, you could have just simply stated: "its important to be open to other possibilities", (and left the ignorant and narrowminded comments out of the discussion.)



> talkhard,
> 
> if you felt like I was criticizing you I'm sorry. That's really not what I was trying to do. I just don't want another perfectly intelligent mind like yours taken advantage of by the lies in our society. At the very least, just consider what I'm saying. That's all I ask. I don't claim to be some prophet or highly enlightened person. I'm simply saying there's valuing to opening one's mind up to different perspectives.


your opinion is that talkhard's mind is being filled with lies. It also my opinion that your mind has been filled with lies, at least partially filled. The beauty of this country is that, as you said, two people can look at the same event and see two different things. Rather than judge talkhard or you, for that matter, as ignorant or narrow minded, we can just agree to disagree on things. There's no stigma in not being able to dissuade someone else's opinion. The best way to open minds is to offer proof and let the facts speak for themselves. The moment you offer opinion based on feelings without proof to back it up and furthermore offer opinions that preclude all other opinions as somehow lesser than your own, you devolve into a generally non productive slam fest. Much better to simplify your opinion and offer more proof of what you are trying to convey.

just my 2 cents.

besides message boards are horrible conduits to mind-change. I've seen and heard the same arguments so many times on so many other boards about the exact same subjects by the exact same folks over and over and over the last 5 years it would make your head spin. Most of us are fairly rigid in our mind, some of that is herediatary, most people never publicly admit a change in perspective on a message board. However, from my experience, in entering these types of hot button discussions, people that offer facts to support their claims are much more influential and force you question your own beliefs if ever they are factually shown to be wrong.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Rodney, I appreciate your efforts to spread greater understanding and to encourage open-mindedness. But you seem to think that anybody who disagrees with you is narrow-minded. Don't you think it's possible that some of us HAVE considered your arguments, and decided that they are wrong??



> "Why don't you tell someone living in poverty working 60 hours a week to get him/herself and her family by to "just eat right and exercise". Why don't you tell even middle-class people who have to work their asses off to stay afloat "just to eat right and exercise". You should considered yourself blessed that you can "just eat right and exercise". This is why I think you're narrow-minded on this issue. Eating right and exercising doesn't come as easy to some as it does others. When you're just trying to get by in life you don't have the time to worry about things like that. On top of that, a lot of people are completely uneducated on these issues which could be attributed to many different factors. Look at the broader picture here. It's more complicated than you're making it."


Is it? Every poor person I have ever known owns a TV. Sometimes they own two or three. There are countless programs on TV about health and fitness these days. You could almost choke on them they are so plentiful. The poor have plenty of access to information about diet and exercise, and the importance thereof. 

I grew up poor. We lived in one house that had cardboard for walls. But my mother made sure that we ate plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables. Being poor doesn't mean you have to be stupid. Always making excuses for the poor is just one more way of perpetuating their problems.

As for hard-working middle class people, I am one of those today. I commute to work 3 hours every day, but I still find time to walk, jog, and go to the gym. I make it a priority to exercise and stay in shape. Anyone can do this, if they want to, but a lot of middle class folk would rather sit on their butts watching TV. 



> "As for diabetes and heart disease being almost 100% preventable, you're right. But they are only 100 percent preventable under certain circumstances. Again, everyone doesn't have the same access to exercise, correct dieting, education on these matters, etc. Also, I urge you to go read some things about diabetes in the minority community. Why are minorities, particularily the African-American community, at a higher risk of getting diabetes than whites?"


Are you suggesting that blacks are genetically pre-disposed to getting diabetes? I suppose it's possible. I do know that blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia. But I suspect that poor diet and lack of exercise is a huge contributing factor to diabetes in the black community. Many blacks are fond of fried foods, for example. This is a great cause of arteriosclerosis, heart disease, and diabetes. And I know that among poor blacks, obesity is a common problem, probably due to poor diet and lack of exercise. But all of us, no matter what our race, are responsible for taking care of our bodies, and eating well.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> I grew up poor. We lived in one house that had cardboard for walls. But my mother made sure that we ate plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables. Being poor doesn't mean you have to be stupid. Always making excuses for the poor is just one more way of perpetuating their problems.


The simplisticness of this also lies in the fact that many health needs are *not* avoidable, whether it's cancer, an auto accident, or other disaster.

These things are disasters to anyone, due to being a serious health issue, but it's a double disaster to those who have no health insurance, since the hospital bills can totally bankrupt them.



> But I suspect that poor diet and lack of exercise is a huge contributing factor to diabetes in the black community. Many blacks are fond of fried foods, for example.


I'm sorry, this is ignorant. *Everyone* in this culture is fond of fried foods (and I don't mean every individual...I mean every assimilated group of people). Go to a McDonalds sometime...there will be a whole hell of a lot more fat, white people scarfing down french fries and chicken mcnuggets.



> And I know that among poor blacks, obesity is a common problem, probably due to poor diet and lack of exercise.


Poor blacks? Try poor blacks, poor whites, middle-class blacks, middle-class whites, white investment bankers, etc. Obesity is an enormous nation-wide problem, and it's not being driven by 15% of the population (blacks).

You seem to be working from a lot of fairly insulting stereotypes about black people.

While it is true good diets and exercise are excellent for health, good diets cost more (fast food is incredibly cheap) and exercise is not what people allot time to when they have to work three jobs to make ends meet. Sometimes, *sleep* is something they can't allot time for.

So, there's little value in telling someone who can barely find enough down-time to rest that if they just exercised more, health insurance would be unnecessary.

Not being able to *afford* to get sick or to be involved in an accident (even if it's not your fault) or for your kids to get sick / be involved in an accident, especially in dangerous environments, is a terrible situation.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Many health needs are not avoidable, whether it's cancer, an auto accident, or other disaster."


Actually, cancer may be more avoidable than you think. Studies show that vegetarians have lower rates of cancer than the general population. But at any rate, I wasn't making an argument about the need for health insurance: I was talking about ways that one can avoid health problems like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Diet plays a huge role in these problems. 



> "Everyone in this culture is fond of fried foods (and I don't mean every individual...I mean every assimilated group of people). Go to a McDonalds sometime...there will be a whole hell of a lot more fat, white people scarfing down french fries and chicken mcnuggets."


You're absolutely right. But I do think that the black community is a little more guilty of this eating habit than some other ethnic groups. Many blacks would tell you this themselves. And you know, it isn't necessarily racist to point out that certain ethnic groups like to eat certain kinds of foods. The French eat more snails than just about anybody. Is it racist to point that out? 



> "Obesity is an enormous nation-wide problem, and it's not being driven by 15% of the population (blacks). You seem to be working from a lot of fairly insulting stereotypes about black people."


And you seem to be intentionally missing my point in order to take a cheap shot at me. Rodney had pointed out that diabetes was a big problem among blacks. I was just trying to explain why that may be. I even suggested that part of it may be genetic. So to accuse me of working from stereotypes is not fair.



> "good diets cost more (fast food is incredibly cheap)"


Sorry, but that's just wrong. It's much cheaper to buy good food in the grocery store than to go out and buy fast-food. Most people eat fast food because it's fast, it's easy, and it tastes good. But if you buy fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods in the grocery store and prepare them in your own kitchen, you will save yourself money and eat better as well.



> "There's little value in telling someone who can barely find enough down-time to rest that if they just exercised more, health insurance would be unnecessary."


Please. This idea that millions of Americans are working around the clock just to put clothes on their kids' back is a myth. I'm from the working class, and I know people in the working class. Most of them hold a 9-to-5 job like everybody else. And most of them spend their evenings sitting in a Lay-Z-Boy watching TV instead of exercising.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> I was talking about ways that one can avoid health problems like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Diet plays a huge role in these problems.


Okay, but that's kind of irrelevant. There are other health tips like taking echinacea to prevent colds. The point is that health insurance is vitally important, and minimizing its importance by saying "eat right and exercise daily" doesn't serve any purpose. It's like saying, "Don't worry about taxation...save right and you'll have plenty of money!" One *should*, but it doesn't make health insurance (or taxation issues) any less vital.



> You're absolutely right. But I do think that the black community is a little more guilty of this eating habit than some other ethnic groups.


It's an American thing, not a black thing or a white thing. Definitely some cultures are less into fried foods. Asian cultures often eat very few fried foods.

But Asians who come to this country and integrate (that is, the generations that are born here and grow up in this culture) become just as into fried foods as anyone else.



> And you seem to be intentionally missing my point in order to take a cheap shot at me. Rodney had pointed out that diabetes was a big problem among blacks. I was just trying to explain why that may be. I even suggested that part of it may be genetic. So to accuse me of working from stereotypes is not fair.


I wasn't taking a cheap shot, I was pointing out that every segment of society is becoming obese, so that is not a good reason for why diabetes would afflict blacks more.

The fact that you feel obesity is a black problem, thus a good possible explanation for why diabetes is a major problem among black people, I felt was a stereotype.



> Sorry, but that's just wrong. It's much cheaper to buy good food in the grocery store than to go out and buy fast-food. Most people eat fast food because it's fast, it's easy, and it tastes good. But if you buy fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods in the grocery store and prepare them in your own kitchen, you will save yourself money and eat better as well.


Time is equivalent to money. Poor families don't always have the time to cook. That's the reason they get fast food. Because it's cheap and it's fast. Fast food hardly "tastes good," compared to well-cooked food. But good cooking takes knowledge and time.



> Please. This idea that millions of Americans are working around the clock just to put clothes on their kids' back is a myth. I'm from the working class, and I know people in the working class. Most of them hold a 9-to-5 job like everybody else. And most of them spend their evenings sitting in a Lay-Z-Boy watching TV instead of exercising.


Again, this is ignorance. Ignorance is not an insult that means "stupidity" or "racism." It's a term that means "lack of knowledge." People who assume that what they know is true across the board, for everyone in all situations, are ignorant. Ignorant of what some people go through, just because they, and the people they know, don't go through it.

There *are* millions of people who work several jobs a day and also have to raise children. There are also millions of people who are as you describe. There are also millions of people who do nothing and lay about.

For you to say, "I know working class people and they're all pretty much like this," is simply not very worldly. There are many people who live nothing like the people you are and you know.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Hold the phones! I'm a person of color and grew up in the south so I'll tell ya what I know; fast food places such as Burger King and Mc Donalds over the last few decades do indeed target market people of color. They've done studies on it Minstrel. Look at who they get to advertise their crappy food! It's not the cast of FRIENDS, that's for sure.

Tell me something Minstrel, what is southern food? Give me like three traditional southern dishes? Now if I ask you to give me a list of soul food dishes which is often confused as just southern cooking what would you say? 

The reason I ask these questions is because Soul Food is all about the grease and the fried sometimes more than once. Pork grease, chicken grease and so on. That grease is re-used over and over again and with the veggies. For you to say that fried, greasy food is not a large % of what people of color eat is just ignorant as you like to put it. Without fried food, there would be no true soul food. People of color created soul food, so how can you say different?

I myself don't like fried foods but I'm of the minority not majority and what Talkhard said is not terribly wrong.

It's true that all races in this country are getting plump but the largest populations of U.S. colored people are still in the south and they still as a large %, love the foods our ancestors created that can kill us the quickest. 

As Andre says "I'm just being honest!"


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Hold the phones! I'm a person of color and grew up in the south so I'll tell ya what I know; fast food places such as Burger King and Mc Donalds over the last few decades do indeed target market people of color. They've done studies on it Minstrel. Look at who they get to advertise their crappy food! It's not the cast of FRIENDS, that's for sure.


They target people of colour? Yes...I've also seen them target white people. Currently, who are they targeting? I'd say *young* people. A lot of them are young black people because they're trying to tap that "urban" image for the sake of "cool." They desperately want the new generation to go to McDonalds and supposed "street culture" is the current image of cool.



> Tell me something Minstrel, what is southern food? Give me like three traditional southern dishes?


Fried chicken, mashed potatoes, chicken fried steak.



> Now if I ask you to give me a list of soul food dishes which is often confused as just southern cooking what would you say?


A whole list? I couldn't possibly...I don't eat soul food. Collard greens is one thing I've heard of.



> The reason I ask these questions is because Soul Food is all about the grease and the fried sometimes more than once. Pork grease, chicken grease and so on.


I believe you. I also know people from the South who tell me that what many people there eat, white people included, is often fried.



> For you to say that fried, greasy food is not a large % of what people of color eat is just ignorant as you like to put it


Here's a problem, buddy: I never said that. I said that *every* group in this country likes fried food. I didn't say that black people don't eat a lot of fried foods.

This is why I have real issues with discussing anything with you. You *flatly make up things* and claim I said them. You claim I say things that I didn't, just because those things are easy for you to argue.



> Without fried food, there would be no true soul food. People of color created soul food, so how can you say different?


See above, I didn't say different. I said everyone likes fried foods, and that's clearly evident from the types of things that are sold constantly, in black, white and latino areas. Go to a TGI Friday's, glance around and see how many white people there are (99% often) and then look at how many menu items (especially the appetizers) are fried.



> I myself don't like fried foods but I'm of the monority not majority and what Talkhard said is not terribly wrong.


It's not wrong to say that black people like fried foods, which seems to be your main point. But that's not what I was arguing. I was saying that it's incorrect to suggest fried foods are some kind of black thing, when they're actually an all-race (in this country) thing.

The sheer amount of fried stuff ingested often varies with wealth, not race. Fried stuff has some taste appeal and takes no time and is extremely cheap. But gourmet food tastes even better and is often better for one...however, that costs money and isn't going to be the staple of poorer people.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> A whole list? I couldn't possibly...I don't eat soul food. Collard greens is one thing I've heard of.


I remembered another one: fried okra.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

My grandfather grew up in Oxford Alabama and died of heart disease at the age of 55. Scary thing is he was a very good athlete (Walk on Football at UCLA, signed by the St Louis Browns before WWII, Golden Glove champ in the Military). At the time of his death he was 6'1" and 190lbs very very little fat on his body.

Don't know how it applies to the conversation maybe just reinforcing the truth of what Terrible is talking about as far about food in the south. Bacon Biscuits and Gravy made form the Bacon drippings for breakfast on a daily basis is what he grew up on.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel, is it fair to say that soul food was created by people of color in this country? Fair to say that food is one thing that defines that culture? If yes to both and the underlined product is fried or greased than is it wrong for TH to state that most black people love fried food? In which you responded he was making a stereotype? That's where I got invloved.

Later in your post you said that Asians traditionally till coming here use very little grease in there food, right?

Ever heard of Dim Sum? Authentic Chinese and very fried and very greasy. So would you be making a stereotype then?

My girlfriend is Korean and we eat BBQ and Fried Fish more than I'd like, not becuase it's SOUL food but rather SEOUL food. 

The point I'm making is food more than anything else can define our cultures cause recipees are past down generation after generation.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ACtually the Majority of Dim Sum is steamed not fried, though it does have Pork fat mixed in with much of it. There are definately fried items involved, but for the most part like I said it is steamed. 

Good stuff btw I love it, Word to the wise though avoid the Chicken Feet.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Tempura is all fried too and man that makes southern food look lightly breaded.

Talk about your Long John Silver version of vegies!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Minstrel, is it fair to say that soul food was created by people of color in this country? Fair to say that food is one thing that defines that culture? If yes to both and the underlined product is fried or greased than is it wrong for TH to state that most black people love fried food?


No, it's not wrong. And I never said it was wrong.



> In which you responded he was making a stereotype? That's where I got invloved.


What I said was a "stereotype" was that obesity is more of a black problem. The fried foods thing, all I said was that every group in the US likes fried foods.

I never once said black people don't like or love fried foods. So all of this is pointless, because you're arguing against a point I *never made*.



> Later in your post you said that Asians traditionally till coming here use very little grease in there food, right?


I said they eat fewer fried foods, traditionally. And that was true until Western influence impacted their cultures and cooking.

Similarly, meat used to be a small part of Asian meals until Western influence changed their habits to some extent.

Now, incidence of frying is higher (though still less than in the US) and meat consumption is much higher.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Soul Food is all about the grease and the fried sometimes more than once. Pork grease, chicken grease and so on. That grease is re-used over and over again and with the veggies. For you to say that fried, greasy food is not a large % of what people of color eat is just ignorant as you like to put it. Without fried food, there would be no true soul food. People of color created soul food, so how can you say different?"


Thank you, Terrible. I feel like I'm beating my head against the wall half the time when I'm simply stating facts.



> "The sheer amount of fried stuff ingested often varies with wealth, not race."


Minstrel, why do you insist on sticking with your politically-corrrect version of things? Terrible, who is a person of color, just told you what the facts are regarding the black diet in the south, and yet you insist on seeing things through your own rose-colored glasses. Can't you admit when you are wrong?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Minstrel, why do you insist on sticking with your politically-corrrect version of things? Terrible, who is a person of color, just told you what the facts are regarding the black diet in the south, and yet you insist on seeing things through your own rose-colored glasses. Can't you admit when you are wrong?


Did you actually bother to read my responses to Terrible? He (and now you) are desperately trying to argue something I never said.

I never said that black people don't like fried foods. Here, I'll repeat that for you, since it seems to be having a tough time getting through to either of you: I never said that black people don't like fried foods.

What did I say? I said *everyone* likes fried food. Does the term "everyone" include black people? Why, yes, it does.

Terrible, a person of colour, informed me black people *do* like fried foods. To which my reply is: good for them. Because, you see, I never said they didn't.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Wow! This conversation degraded quickly. 

I don't even know what and who is arguing what anymore. 

Somehow we moved from economy and healthcare to debating the diet of a southern black male (preferably of the poor variety).

I'd love to catch up on this topic, but I think it has hit the point of insulting. 

Play.


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

I always read these threads with great interest. I find it interesting to see viewpoints that are so completely opposite of mine and I enjoy learning from them.

In my estimation it comes down to a basic question: 

"What should the role of government be in society?"

For me, it should be an efficient, highly organized, limited entity that has the best interests of all of it's citizens in mind.

Should it be the role of the government to provide everything and be everything for all it's citizens? I don't think so.

I agree that there is far too much political crap that takes place today. Everyone is interested in serving themselves and asking themselves "how does this benefit me?". Republicans and Democrats alike.

What's the answer? I have no idea. I just know that I'm unbelievably concerned for a generation/society where more and more reliance is placed on the government to provide.


Other observations:

I have a friend that is in graduate school with me and he's from Sweden. I asked him why he came to the states and his answer was twofold: first, the lack of opportunity in Sweden and secondly, the high taxes.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I certainly didn't intend this thread to veer toward the food preferences of minorities. I sure don't mind it though. goes to show that the guy who started a thread often is just unleashing a bullet which might ricochet in any damned direction. especially if the word "Bush" is in the title. 

I wouldn't want this to be construed as a personal attack, but has anybody else here noticed that TalkHard and Terrible seem to think one way while the rest of the dozens of regular posters on this board think another way? 

the frightening thing to me is that if you were actually to sit down with the President of the United States, I honestly feel he'd think a lot like TalkHard and Terrible.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> I certainly didn't intend this thread to veer toward the food preferences of minorities. I sure don't mind it though. goes to show that the guy who started a thread often is just unleashing a bullet which might ricochet in any damned direction. especially if the word "Bush" is in the title.
> 
> I wouldn't want this to be construed as a personal attack, but has anybody else here noticed that TalkHard and Terrible seem to think one way while the rest of the dozens of regular posters on this board think another way?


I think that could be the case..or a lot of the people who would agree with them, just don't take the time to take part in a discussion that basically turns into a pissing contest.



> the frightening thing to me is that if you were actually to sit down with the President of the United States, I honestly feel he'd think a lot like TalkHard and Terrible.


If I was to sit down the president, I'd give him lots of tongue twisters to say.

such as the following



> Pretty please McGee, I was knowed as in them days. Pretty Please Mcgee, proclaimed by press and public the peerless prosecutor of pilfering pickpockets, political parasites and perdious persons performing petty peccedillos. Puttin' prison pajamas on poker players preyin' on poor punks with peculiar pasteboards and purloinin' poperty with prestidigitation; Pleadin' with passion and pathos for poor people in pretty pickles: A peppy personality with a capital "P"- but here's more returns from Floridee!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap- sometimes I wonder if you'll ever get back to the topic at hand. the rest of the time I realize there isn't one.

in both circumstance, don't change.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Even though this pains me to say JR did win and has been president for three brutal years. I would think a board full of amazing debaters such as yourselves would hate to give me and TH so much credit to overcome such odds!


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

anybody got a "terrible-to-english" translator?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

man, as soon as I come up with a "W-to-english translator" I'll get right on it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Heres a fun little ditty... man flash is taking over

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

STOMP


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I am aknowledging this statement not as support nor as dissapproval, just interesting.

I have heard it argued by an African American man from Mississippi (can't remember the name) that the Democrats are the ones to blame for the repression of minorities in society. His arguments stemmed from the creation of social programs that do not encourage minorities to rise above the "geto", but instead pacifies those that feel they have been repressed. In his eyes the concept of social programs (welfare etc..) keeps the rich rich and the Poor poor, more so than the less programs, less taxation rproposed by the Republican party. 

He said these words exactly. "The democrats throw the minorites of the United States a bone for the sake of their vote."

Interesting viewpoint IMO.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

I just wanted to be the 1000th person the view this thread.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

In some sense I agree, Schilly. But it's equally true to say that a life preserver doesn't elevate a drowning man, it keeps him where he is. However, that's a whole lot better than where he'd be without it, which is drowned.

I think that there are ways to help under-priviledged minorities actually advance themselves in society, by improving the quality of neighborhoods (reducing the danger levels and health problems) and by improving the quality of schools in the inner city.

But those things take time. Before you can get a helicopter in place to assist a drowning man in climbing out of the water, it's a good idea to do something to keep him from drowning.

That's my perspective. Wellfare is not a solution...it's a life preserver until strong, forward-looking solutions can be put in place and start working.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> In some sense I agree, Schilly. But it's equally true to say that a life preserver doesn't elevate a drowning man, it keeps him where he is. However, that's a whole lot better than where he'd be without it, which is drowned.
> 
> I think that there are ways to help under-priviledged minorities actually advance themselves in society, by improving the quality of neighborhoods (reducing the danger levels and health problems) and by improving the quality of schools in the inner city.
> ...


The old Statement.

"Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him to fish and he can eat for a lifetime"


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> The old Statement.
> 
> "Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him to fish and he can eat for a lifetime"



Bobby Heenan said it best.

Friends are like fish. After 3 days they both stink.

Not to be confused with "A friend in need is a pest"


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> The old Statement.
> 
> "Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him to fish and he can eat for a lifetime"


Yes, and it's one I absolutely agree with.

But if "teaching him to fish" takes a few years, you might want to also "give him some fish" so he can survive until then.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Or spend that time fishing with him... So that you can give him the fish and at least have his assistence in the catching.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I am aknowledging this statement not as support nor as dissapproval, just interesting.
> 
> I have heard it argued by an African American man from Mississippi (can't remember the name) that the Democrats are the ones to blame for the repression of minorities in society. His arguments stemmed from the creation of social programs that do not encourage minorities to rise above the "geto", but instead pacifies those that feel they have been repressed. In his eyes the concept of social programs (welfare etc..) keeps the rich rich and the Poor poor, more so than the less programs, less taxation rproposed by the Republican party.
> ...


I posted this in another thread but it touches on a lot of what you were saying.




> In 1964, when Southern Democrats lost their fight against the Civil Rights Act, blacks progressed at a phenomenal rate. Albeit poor, we were moving in the right direction. We believed in God, family and freedom. Families were mostly intact. Out-of-wedlock births were below 25 percent, and that was considered high.
> 
> Despite open discrimination, the fact that black kids were born into intact two-parent families is a crucial point too often neglected. I believe that is a primary reason why there are now successful blacks in nearly every industry in America even though we only represent 13 percent of the population.
> 
> ...


http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenFamily802.html


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

The bottom line is that neither party really gives a crap about black people.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Or anybody without money...


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> The bottom line is that neither party really gives a crap about black people.


bingo!

or mexicans, or asians, or ****'s, or deaf people, or midgets, or hindu's, or russians, or ******, or any other group of people, all they care about is retaining power by any means necessary.

later


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> bingo!
> ...


Well, the government does care about white people.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, the government does care about white people.



really? I guess that's why Bush wants to allow illegal aliens to be legal workers in this country (and take jobs away from natural citizens white, black, red, yellow etc..) I guess that's why we have affirmative action programs that discriminate against white people in favor of blacks, mexicans etc... I guess that's why our gov't turns a blind eye when we export jobs to India, Canada and Mexico that otherwise would have been filled by you and me. 

all I'm saying is take off your color glasses, everyone has some issues with the gov't, and at the end of the day the gov't serves itself, not you.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "The bottom line is that neither party really gives a crap about black people."


It's worth pointing out that George Bush has 2 black people in his Cabinet, while Clinton had none. Yet Clinton prided himself on being the first black president, whatever that means.

One of the black people in Bush's Cabinet is Colin Powell, the first ever black Secretary of State. This is the guy who serves as our representative to the leaders of other countries. And Condoleeza Rice, a black WOMAN, is one of Bush's most trusted advisors. He listens to her advice about terrorism and national security on a daily basis, and is in almost constant contact with her. 

Of course you'll never hear the mainstream media give Bush any credit for being so open-minded and tolerant. No, he's a big bad Republican bigot, don't you know!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Is it considered "tolerant" to listen to a black person?

Poor word choice maybe?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Is it considered "tolerant" to listen to a black person?
> 
> Poor word choice maybe?"


No. You're overreacting.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

If you say so...

I guess I consider myself tolerant any time I listen to a speech by our President.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

The government doesn't care about ANYONE but the government. Rich, poor, white or not ... they don't care. 

I agree with the general trend of thinking around here over the past few posts ... 

Welfare and most social programs for that matter were designed with the express intent of keeping people poor. It is a disincentive to move forward.

Further, there is no place in the FEDERAL government for these programs. They have AGAIN, stepped over their constitutional bounds. 

The government is so busy hoodwinking us all, that we fail to realize it. We get caught up in black this/ white that ... segregation this ... rich vs. poor ... that we loose sight of what is going on.

<b>If we took all stopped for a moment with the segregation among the various lines ... we'd realize the government is bending us ALL over a barrel.</b>

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I guess I consider myself tolerant any time I listen to a speech by our President."


While you're listening, keep in mind that Bush is giving $15 billion in AIDS medicines to Africa. All of that will go directly to help black people who can't even vote for him. 

(But wait! Bush is a bigot! He's a big meany! He doesn't care about black people!! Right?)


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> While you're listening, keep in mind that Bush is giving $15 billion in AIDS medicines to Africa. All of that will go directly to help black people who can't even vote for him.


You really get into this, don't you? 

First, why do I want my government giving medication to people in another country? It costs OUR corporation's money ... further ... why are people overseas getting these benefits, while our people must suffer?

I am NOT an advocate of government healthcare domestically, so why should I support it globally? Why should I be excited that my President feels free to spend my tax dollars on these things?



> (But wait! Bush is a bigot! He's a big meany! He doesn't care about black people!! Right?)


No, he doesn't. It's called resume building.

Play.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I never claimed that Bush is a bigot, and all everyone else seems to be saying is that the goverment doesn't really care about blacks/mexicans/whites/whoever as people...

Not the Republicans or the Democrats. I think that the Democrats (the politicians anyway) suck up to minorities to get their votes and I think that the Republicans (again, the politicians) suck up to rich people to get their votes.

This is of course my opinion and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I did however take issue with the idea that trusting in black people makes one "tolerant" or "open-minded" as if it were some sort of genetic handicap to be born black...

It doesn't take tolerance to listen to a 5-star general, it's just common sense.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "The government doesn't care about ANYONE but the government. Rich, poor, white or not ... they don't care."


A gross oversimplification, and not worthy of a mind like yours, Play. The government is made up of people. Some of them actually want to make the U.S. a better place. Do you honestly believe that Senator John McCain doesn't care about veterans? Or that Barney Frank doesn't care about the rights of homosexuals? Or that Maxine Waters doesn't care about poor blacks in East L.A.? Politicians can be cynical and self-promoting, but ALSO care about people. The two things are not mutually exclusive.



> "Welfare and most social programs for that matter were designed with the express intent of keeping people poor. It is a disincentive to move forward."


For once we agree. I don't know if social programs like welfare were designed to keep people poor, but they sure have that effect. And yes, they rob people of incentive, there's no doubt about it. That's why I just shake my head when I hear Democrats talk about how they have helped the inner cities.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "It's called resume building."


Yes, I'm sure Bush is polishing his resume every day. After he leaves the White House, he's hoping to get a really GOOD job!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> A gross oversimplification, and not worthy of a mind like yours, Play. The government is made up of people. Some of them actually want to make the U.S. a better place, and help people improve their lives. Do you honestly believe that Senator John McCain doesn't care about veterans? Or that Barney Frank doesn't care about the rights of homosexuals? Or that Maxine Waters doesn't care about poor blacks in East L.A.? Politicians can be cynical and self-promoting, but ALSO care about people. The two things are not mutually exclusive.


I understand your line of thought ... but you missed mine. The government as an overall entity does not care about people.

It has TOO many things inherently wrong within the system to be of real use for the people. Now, it does everything it can to grasp stronger footholds of control and intrude on our lives.

The stuff happening lately is 1984 stuff. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I have to say ... something isn't right in the state of Denmark. (or however the saying went)

Individuals can care, but overall their career and advancement typically overpowers things. People owe people, people are backed by groups ... so instead of having the good in mind ... it gets wrenched and morphed into something else.



> For once we agree. I don't know if social programs like welfare were designed to keep people poor, but they sure have that effect. And yes, they rob people of incentive, there's no doubt about it. That's why I just shake my head when I hear Democrats talk about how they have helped the inner cities.


I believe they were. 

This government is capable of nuking our own troops. Allowing bombs to drop on Pearl Harbor. Among other atrocities to our own people. 

I think they, as a unit, are capable of anything.

With Bush's son, the son of the CIA (another unconstitutional entity) head running our country ... I get nervous.

But going back to welfare, all one has to do is look at the structure. The design is so perfect. To try to get in a better spot, you are immediately relieved of support. 

So, it is incentive to stay put and disincentive to move forward.

I am ALL AGAINST government interference in social programs. It is awful, scary stuff. The government is incapable of the roles it is taking on ... and their most recent big is to control US through whatever means possible. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Yes, I'm sure Bush is polishing his resume every day. After he leaves the White House, he's hoping to get a really GOOD job.


He hasn't left the White House yet, has he?

He's polishing the resume of republicans and himself for a second term. 

The guy scares me. 

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Why do I want my government giving medication to people in another country?"


Well, let's see. To help eradicate a horrible disease? To improve relations with sub-Saharan Africa? To offer humanitarian assistance just like we do when floods or earthquakes strike other countries? To help relieve suffering and poverty? To give the children of Africa some hope? To encourage other western countries to do the same?

Yes, there is suffering in our own country that needs to be addressed, but the U.S. has always been generous in helping other countries during times of crisis. Africa is going through an AIDS crisis of monumental proportions. If unchecked, the disease could wipe out half of the continent.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Well, let's see. To help eradicate a horrible disease?


Point me in the direction of the potion that cures AIDS and together we can be multi-bijillionaires. 

There is no such treatment at this point that will "eradicate" the disease by any stretch. 

In fact, we are doing the polar opposite - instead of funding companies to find a CURE, we are taking funds away to give to another country. Further, the problem with AIDS is NOT that it kills -- it is that it kills over 10-20 years. If it killed in a day, we could isolate and quaranteen it ... but it gestates and transmits. 

Thus, prolonging the life of those exposed only leads to more exposure.

The problem isn't sex. It is anal sex. The culture in certain african communes is for this type of intercourse for reasons I don't know. The tissue tears easily and transmits the virus. This is why AIDS was long-time considered to be a homosexual disease. (just for statistics sake: there is a 1:10000 chance that a male will contract AIDS from a female during protected sex, vice versa it is 1:5000)



> To improve relations with sub-Saharan Africa?


While alienating our own citizens and other countries in the process. Bravo.



> To offer humanitarian assistance just like we do when floods or earthquakes strike other countries?


When it serves us.



> To help relieve suffering and poverty?


AIDS medication has many uses I see. 



> To give the children of Africa some hope?


How does AIDS medication provide hope?



> To encourage other western countries to do the same?


Doubt it.



> Yes, there is suffering in our own country that needs to be addressed, but the U.S. has always been generous in helping other countries during times of crisis.


No, the US sticks its nose in everyones butt to see if it smells right and quite often it isn't warranted or wanted. In this instance it is wanted, but at what cost?

The issues we face currently with terrorism isn't because the US is a bunch of nice guys that help the world out. Quite the opposite, as long as there is something to gain, we help out. 

Anyone remember when we first had a love affair with Afghanistan? Rambo 3 bring back the memories? We wanted to fight the dreaded "commies". As soon as Russia left, so did our 
support for the Afghan people. 

Politics, man. That's all it is. 



> Africa is going through an AIDS crisis of monumental proportions. If unchecked, the disease could wipe out half of the continent.


Right now the country of Italy is facing a crisis that will cause a population decrease of 70% by 2020. Not my problem. Not what I pay taxes for.

If they repealed my income tax and allowed me to charitably give to causes .. then I would feel different. But don't extort my paycheck and use the funds for purposes that don't help me or the people I see on a daily basis. 

Anyhow, AIDS will do what it will do with or without medication. The medication only slows down the AIDS portion of the virus and postpones the eventual collapse. How does this stop the spread?

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I did however take issue with the idea that trusting in black people makes one "tolerant" or "open-minded" as if it were some sort of genetic handicap to be born black...
> 
> It doesn't take tolerance to listen to a 5-star general, it's just common sense."


It takes a tolerant and open-minded person to appoint two black people to your cabinet. That's the point. Republicans are often accused of not being tolerant and open-minded, etc. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

TH,

I guess I just have an issue with your semantics, so nevermind...

But could you see how it might be condescending to hire a black man for a position and then praise yourself for being "tolerant"? 

That implies that black people are somehow difficult to tolerate or that you are doing them some kind of favor for hiring them.

I don't know anything about the lady you mentioned but Colin Powell is certainly not an AA hire. This lady was probably the best person for the job as well.

If she wasn't, I doubt he made a racial hire due to "tolerance" or "open-mindedness". If he did it was more than likely an image thing. Do you think that GW would pass over a more qualified white candidate because he wanted to somehow help out black people? Of course not, he'd do it to look good to voters like yourself...

And that's the whole point of this latest line of thought. As a unit, the government doesn't cater to the needs of any particular group because they want to make their lives better. They will, in general, cater to whatever group that gives them the best shot of staying in power.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

I'm really sick of this thread and talkhard's ignorance (yes, you're ignorant and I'm saying it straight up) so I'm gonna say my piece and get up out of this biatch...

The government doesn't give a **** about black people and pretty much every other minority in this country. The government really doesn't give a **** about poor people either, white or black or whatever. The government does give a **** about the middle class and rich white people in this country. And talkhard, no one ever said Bush was a bigot. It just goes to show how ignorant you are. You're pulling out all the typical, narrow-minded and ignorant flash cards to prove your point. I talk to people like you every single day and you all think alike. "Hey, Bush has two black guys in his cabinet". WOW! AINT THAT SOME ****! Damn, I guess he's just some common day Malcolm X now, isn't he. Two black guys, imagine that. I mean, forget the fact that his administration intentionally misconstrued a healthcare report that showed discrepancies between minoritial and white health care (don't believe me, look it up). Forget the fact that Bush decided to wage a large-scale war instead of making good on some of his financial promises to Africa (sorry, talkhard, his 15 million wasn't all that was promised). The guy is "tolerant" (wtf) and put two black guys in his cabinet. Leave him alone. 

talkhard, I tried my best to work with you. Unfortunately, you're brainwashed. Why? You choose to not think critically for the sake of political affiliation, making you ignorant. Yeah, you're ignorant and close-minded. Not because you don't agree with me. No, it's far from that. It's your inability to look at issues critically (for example, your take on black health issues) and separate truth from fact. You automatically side with your political affiliation and your perspective of the world without considering the other side, and for that, you're to blame. I think it's sad that a perfectly intelligent mind like yours has to be brainwashed but have it your way. You're ignorant.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, and get a clue. Affirmative action is not discriminatory. Think for yourself.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> Oh, and get a clue. Affirmative action is not discriminatory. Think for yourself.


Actually, affirmative action is discriminatory by its very definition. Discrimination on the basis of race is exactly what Affirmative Action is.

Now, it's possible that it's a "good" kind of discrimination (and I'm not saying that in a sarcastic way), but I don't see how one can deny it's discrimination.

Ed O.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> It takes a tolerant and open-minded person to appoint two black people to your cabinet.


No, I disagree here.

It takes a closed-minded, non-tolerant person to deny the best person for the job. 

It takes nothing to be fair. 

I know what you are saying, and I applaud Bush for having courage to do what he did. Politics are weird, but I think he did it with other motives too. (such as the ability to say "I appointed black people to my staff") 

But--

I don't consider myself open-minded and tolerent for accepting people. I consider that to be a state of normalicy. It is the bigot/rascist that is non-normal. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Wow, dude. That is some harsh talk there. 

I'm not a HUGE fan of Talkhard's belief's on this or a lot of other topics, but I am not sure going the route you did is:

(A) beneficial
(B) proving a point
(C) making you look good

Is Talkhard ignorant? Far from it. He is VERY informed. If he wasn't, he couldn't keep up the conversation. In fact, you seem to be quite ignorant of the term ignorant. Please make sure you understand it before you sling it around.



> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> I'm really sick of this thread and talkhard's ignorance (yes, you're ignorant and I'm saying it straight up) so I'm gonna say my piece and get up out of this biatch...


It is unfortunate that you feel this way.



> The government doesn't give a **** about black people and pretty much every other minority in this country. The government really doesn't give a **** about poor people either, white or black or whatever.


Okay, I disagree. The government loves these groups because they tend to be easier to control through political manuevers. They can promise things and get votes. It's awful, but true. 

The class you seem to be referring to are the undereducated classes - poor people. This isn't a slight, but a generalization. Typically the poorer the class the lower the overall education. Poor people are easy to control, you have to see thing in a governmental light. 



> The government does give a **** about the middle class and rich white people in this country.


How can you begin to say that?

I make a decent salary. I make a very good living, but the government takes a LOT of that away. More than it is constitutionally allowed to. 

The government doesn't like rich people. It just seems that way because rich people run in those circles and can help their causes with contributions. 

If we need to get into an in-depth conversation on taxes and how they are geared towards raping the hard-working middle to upper class, we can. Before Reagan, I would be earning .02 on every dollar earned at my tax bracket... that's sick. 

But, going back to why it seems the government caters to rich people is:

(A) the richer class can buy better things, they ae taxed more and as such end up with better communities as the tax money pours back.
(B) the richer people, as a whole, tend to be better educated and more informed. Thus, they make more noise about issues they feel need change. The poor class has more to worry about then congress... unfortunately. 

I'm not trying to be a jerk or sound cruel ... but these are real world generalizations.



> Forget the fact that Bush decided to wage a large-scale war instead of making good on some of his financial promises to Africa (sorry, talkhard, his 15 million wasn't all that was promised).


His making "good" on promises to Africa has little to do with a racially motivated fact. Truth is, I am not a fan of Bush giving my tax dollars to Africa. Not a fan at all. And I'm not racist. 



> Unfortunately, you're brainwashed.


The same can be said of you. You seem to be on the opposite side, with about as much justification as Talkhard. All one can have on these issues is opinion. 



> You choose to not think critically for the sake of political affiliation, making you ignorant. Yeah, you're ignorant and close-minded. Not because you don't agree with me. No, it's far from that. It's your inability to look at issues critically (for example, your take on black health issues) and separate truth from fact.


How do you know how much critical evaluation he has put forth?

[quote[You automatically side with your political affiliation and your perspective of the world without considering the other side, and for that, you're to blame. I think it's sad that a perfectly intelligent mind like yours has to be brainwashed but have it your way. You're ignorant. [/QUOTE]

Again, you don't know the definition of the term.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> Affirmative action is not discriminatory. Think for yourself.


Think for myself -- okay, I will. Why don't you?

I challenge you to provide me with a valid argument on how affirmative action is NOT discriminatory. I challenge you to follow that up with a definition of discrimination ...

Do that before you call out posters who post in good form.

Also, if you can do that ... I will debate with you and provide you some "free thought" on why I think affirmative action IS disciminatory.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I'm gonna say my piece and get up out of this biatch...


I have no idea what that means. However, it sounds extremely ignorant and perhaps even offensive to women. That surprises me, coming from such an enlightened guy as you, Rodney. 



> The government doesn't give a **** about black people and pretty much every other minority in this country. The government really doesn't give a **** about poor people either, white or black or whatever.


The U.S. government has passed hundreds of laws protecting the rights of the poor and minorities. Ever hear of Affirmative Action? Minimum wage laws? Laws to protect labor unions? Laws to protect workplace safety? Laws that established the 8-hour work day (lowering it from 12 hours)? 

Are you aware that very poor people are exempt from paying Federal Income Taxes? Or that the government provides loans and grants for underprivileged students? Or that the government builds housing for low income people? Have you ever heard of Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC)? General Assistance? Food Stamps? Supplemental Security Income? Medicaid? About 40 million Americans participated in these federal programs for the poor every month during the 1990's.

Are you aware that the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was established in 1964 to fight the war on poverty? Did you know that a Federal program called The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) exists to provide counseling for the legal needs of the poor, including Native Americans and migrant farmworkers? Or that it has provided legal assistance to tens of millions of low-income people over the years, as well as helped residents rebuild neighborhoods ruined by crime, joblessness, and poverty, through economic development initiatives?

Do you still think the government doesn't care about poor people or minorities? If so, I'll let the rest of the board decide which one of us is "ignorant."


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that means. However, it sounds extremely ignorant and perhaps even offensive to women. That surprises me, coming from such an enlightened guy as you, Rodney.


He's equating this discussion on racial politics to a dog in a joking manner TH, no need to lash out with insults because of your acknowledged ignorance of common pop culture terms.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> He's equating this discussion on racial politics to a dog in a joking manner


Sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about. What does a dog have to do with this discussion? And what does it mean to "get up out of this biatch"?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about. What does a dog have to do with this discussion? And what does it mean to "get up out of this biatch"?


Err...if you don't know...would that mean you felt no problem with commenting on, and criticizing another poster about, something you were, dare I say, ignorant about? 

Just curious.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about. What does a dog have to do with this discussion? And what does it mean to "get up out of this biatch"?


he's saying this will be his final thoughts on this thread that he feels has turned into a dog of a discussion. Biatch is a playful way of slurring the name of a female dog that is very common in today's pop culture that many/most of the posters on this board are in the age group to be a part of. This all equates to him being tired of this chit chat as everyone seems to have made their points and is sort of chasing their tails restating their views. It's nothing offensive toward you or anyone else IMO. 

STOMP


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh, and get a clue. Affirmative action is not discriminatory. Think for yourself.


i think you need to figure it out yourself. Affirmative action is reverse-discrimination. Don't believe me? I'll paint you a true picture, cuz it happened to me. At age 17 I enlisted in the Coast Guard and went to boot camp in Cape May, NJ. I joined the Reserves and served during my senior year in HS. 

When I was 18 I applied to the Coast Guard Academy, I sent off my application which included a signed letter of recommendation by then Senator Mark Hatfield. My grades were good, I had a very high SAT score and on top of all that I was an All-American high school swimmer and the coach at the Academy was recruiting me to be his guy (as comparing my times with his swimmers times, I would have been his fastest swimmer). Well, they do the selection process and after each round of cuts, the swim coach at the Academy is calling me letting me know where I stand. I make it through round 1, no prob. I make it round 2, no prob. In the final round of cuts (round 3), I get cut. Why? Because the Academy selection committe gave preference to women, blacks and mexicans. I asked the swim coach if the people they chose had better grades, better SAT's and better swim times than me and he flatly said to me "no, you were very qualified, but you just lost out due to affirmative action"

so you can call it what you want, but in the end when you select people that aren't as qualified as others based simply on their ethnicity or gender, that is discrimination. I understand its for a good cause, but its still discrimination. And it doesn't really bother me in hindsight because my life has turned out great anyhow, but at the time I was pretty ticked.



> The government does give a **** about the middle class and rich white people in this country.


so only white people are rich? Or the gov't only cares about the rich ones that are white? Do you have color issues? Seems like it. When you're done spewing your invective, let us all know.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

LOL! Lawd Almighty help these people. Wow...

That said, I'm done. For real this time. I mean, I can't even start to argue with what you all are saying. But hey, remained stooped in your ignorance. If talkhard is a "very informed" person, I'm Beaver Cleaver. 

I'm up outta this biatch. Chuuuuuuuuuch! (Don't ask)


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> he's saying this will be his final thoughts on this thread that he feels has turned into a dog of a discussion.


Ummm ... I doubt it. I'm pretty "down" with the lingo -- and usually I hear it in reference to places or people and things. Rarely in reference to a dog. 



> Biatch is a playful way of slurring the name of a female dog


Yeah, and every other term is another way of saying something else. Typically I don't think people are referring to dogs when the slang up the term "*****".

I'm not sure you are being sarcastic or not .. 



> This all equates to him being tired of this chit chat as everyone seems to have made their points and is sort of chasing their tails restating their views. It's nothing offensive toward you or anyone else IMO.


I don't think he was being derogatory in a way that anyone should be offended, but I don't think he was alluding to dogs chasing their tails. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> LOL! Lawd Almighty help these people. Wow...


Well, maybe the Lord can, but you certainly can't. You spout off at the mouth about something and then don't back it up.

You are met with retorts and resort to running away. 

No problem.



> That said, I'm done.


Ok, you won't be sorely missed. 



> For real this time. I mean, I can't even start to argue with what you all are saying. But hey, remained stooped in your ignorance. If talkhard is a "very informed" person, I'm Beaver Cleaver.


You can't "stand" to argue it, because you can't. 

You either:

(A) Don't have the ability
(B) Don't have the knowledge
(C) Both

Don't blame it on the discussion. 

As for Talkhard ... he may have biased opinions that I don't agree with and I think that he is very rigid -- I don't consider him "ignorant" on the issue. 

Nor do I consider myself ignorant, which is what you implied by saying "you all" and then saying "remain stooped in your ignorance". 

Ever heard the phrase: 
_"A rat sniffs out its own hole first?"_

It applies to you, I am sure.



> I'm up outta this biatch. Chuuuuuuuuuch! (Don't ask)


Again, you won't be missed.

Play.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Ummm ... I doubt it. I'm pretty "down" with the lingo -- and usually I hear it in reference to places or people.



Which in the context of how it was said is definitely not what was being refered to (a person or a place). Heres a few more examples that run counter to your definition... 

-this hill is a biatch

-my taxes are a biatch this year

-how does Snoop Doggie Dogg get his whites their whitest? Bleatch! :laugh:

No smoke, no fire, not even a molehill to make a mountain out of IMO

STOMP


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> Which in the context of how it was said is definitely not what was being refered to (a person or a place).


Sure it was.

If I was in a club and turned to a friend and said "let's get up out this biatch ... " the biatch in this instance is the club.

In this instance, the biatch was the message threat. He is getting out of the message thread.

I think you are pulling an English Lit 401 thing here and looking deeper into the meaning of the lingo.



> Heres a few more examples that run counter to your definition...


Okay, bring it.



> -this hill is a biatch


I doubt they are referring to the hill being a dog, either. They are using biatch instead of the true derogatory term. 

It is "cooler" to say bi-atch then the true term.

This lends no credence to your argument.



> -doing my taxes is a biatch


See above.

I really don't think anyone is saying doing my taxes is akin to doing a dog. Well, at least I hope not.



> -how does Snoop Doggie Dogg get his whites their whitest? Bleatch :laugh:


Okay, that's funny.



> No smoke, no fire, not even a molehill to make a mountain out of IMO


I agree, it isn't something to get offended about - but it unmistakably an altered word form of the derogatory term.

I haven't EVER heard anyone use the term biatch or the derogatory other version in reference to a dog, except in jest. Heck, it is even considered a bad word even used in the proper context now.

But, trying to insinuate that Robbie was referring to this thread as a dog and insinuating that we were chasing our tails by the usage of this term is a stretch in every sense of the word. 

Play.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Doing a dog? Wow that is miles off track IMO. I think he's saying this discussion has digressed to the point it is a dog. It's ok for a poster to refer to a thread in a derogatory manner. It is not ok for a poster to refer to another poster in a derogatory manner. Confusion over common pop culture terms is not an excuse to lash out. I don't find the term biatch profane unconditionally, but I probably wouldn't use it in formal settings. This Bball chatsite is not dinner at the White House.

IMO this discussion is tired and people are chasing their tails going nowhere... of course I carried the dog annalogy out that bit there (with the tail chasing), but it is not a stretch in every sense of the word to say that he was equating this discussion to a dog. It's certainly not worth TH rolling out the personal swipes as it was neither ignorant or insulting towards women in the context it was used. It was used in a playful way (IMO) as part of his intro to saying this would be his final word here. 

Thats going to be my final word for a while, as the beach is calling on this beautiful day and I'm hopping on my bike ... in case anyone gets confused, that means I'm going to that area where the land meets the ocean 

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I don't give a darn who's culture we are referring to but that statenent is very crude.
"get up out of this biatch"

I would imagine then, when talking to your wife,girlfriend,mother,
you would refere to them in this manner??

Is your mother a biatch ??


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm not sure, but I suspect biatches prefer fried food.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> It is not ok for a poster to refer to another poster in a derogatory manner.


Rodney called me "brainwashed" and "ignorant" several times in his post, and you were silent. But when I responded by referring to one of his remarks (not him) as sounding "ignorant," you accused me of making a personal attack.

To continue the dog analogy, it seems like you're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

TH -I've read maybe 1/2 of this thread as I've found the parts I have read pretty boring with pettyness flourishing... but whatever, thats just MO. Nonetheless, you've been here long enough to figure out the rules... as an adult, why do you still feel the need to meet fire with fire? Why not take the high road, and not resort to cheap namecalling/insults no matter what is said towards you, especially when you admittedly don't understand whats being said? I know many of the other regulars here have been called names and are able to turn the other cheek so to speak. PM the mods if you have a problem with how you are being addressed. The rules apply to everyone here but RTR isn't the regular here breaking them for the umteenth time to my knowledge :sigh:

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Actually TH and I had communicated via PM about RtR's post. The reason RtR's post was not edited is because it seemed, in the context of the thread, to be acceptable to the majority of the moderators I communicated with. Personally, I think "brainwashed" was insulting and I perhaps should have struck that word out.

Additionally, the use of the word "biatch" should have been struck out, as well. "*****" is a word that is not acceptable on this site, and RtR's alternate pronunciation/spelling of it circumvented the board's checker without ameliorating the reason the word is filtered out in the first place.

All things considered (and fwiw) I think TH showed admirable restraint following RtR's post and I feel that it was a failure on my part as a mod to not knock out the couple parts that have led to the majority of this tangent off of it.

So, can we stop talking about "the b word" and the use of "ignorant" for now? Thanks,

Ed O.


----------

