1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Racial Irrationality on the Right

clidke frawley Wrote: 2 hours ago (11:20 AM)
I agree that the police, National Guard--whomever--needs to stop the rioting and looting by whatever means necessary. I recall the '68 riots in Chicago and Mayor Daley issuing the 'shoot to kill' order, which calmed things down pretty damn fast. However, I do think militarization of the police is a problem. The police didn't start dressing like Rambo and using MRAPs in response to violence they couldn't control. Instead, the Feds provided them with this stuff and they are finding every excuse they can to use it, often inappropriately. When police show up at a peaceful protest with armored vehicles pointing rifles at citizens they are not protecting the people they are threatening them. Such displays of 'us vs. them' serve to inflame the situation rather than to preserve order. When police in full SWAT gear show up pre-dawn and bust down someone's door for a suspected minor offense (like small scale drug possession), they do not advance the cause of justice. In fact, there are countless incidents of them getting the wrong house, shooting family pets, and even shooting innocent people, not to mention terrorizing children and adults alike. Such actions further the perception (and perhaps reality) of the police being a military force to keep the populace in line, rather than the traditional role of serve and protect.
While I question the need for a second autopsy, I am also concerned about Holder's (and others) comment that the police department needs to be more racially diverse. I'm not opposed to diversity on the force, of course, but there are 2 problems with his statement. First, it suggests that white officers are racist. If all cops, regardless of color, are doing their job correctly, the officer's skin color should not matter. By saying the force needs more diversity in response to this shooting, Holder is implying there was some sort of racial bias in this incident and that if more cops were black this 'problem' wouldn't exist. We have no idea yet if this had anything to do with racism and it increasingly looks like it did not. If a black officer shot Brown, would this protesting be going on? Would charges of racism be flying? Holder is simply fanning the flames of racism by insinuating that if a white cop shoots a black person we should automatically assume there was a racial motivation. This is stupid. Secondly, Holder has jumped to that assumption that more black cops are needed without even asking why the composition of the force is the way it is. Maybe black people are not applying to be police officers in Ferguson. Maybe black applicants are not passing the tests. Who knows. The point is, before declaring that more diversity is needed, one must ask what more diversity would accomplish and why there is a lack of diversity today. Simply demanding that the composition of the force reflect the composition of the community is stupid. Should we do that with the NBA? I think Asians are grossly underrepresented in the NBA compared to the percentage of the population that is Asian. Should we start a campaign to get more racial diversity in the NBA?
Is that also why ISIS is beheading Christian children? And why they are brutally raping and enslaving Christian women? Is that why they are hanging the men, or shooting them execution style? Is that why they are burring Christians alive? Is US 'meddling' the reason they are surrounding tens of thousands of Christians on a mountain to either die or come down and be beheaded, crucified, raped or crucified? Your questions also seems to imply that before any US 'meddling', Islamist were perfectly happy and peaceful. This is not reality as even the most cursory examination of history would tell you. Since it's founding, jihad has been a core principle of Islam and they have never stopped. That the US happens to be their target du jour at the moment has much more to do with our ability to stop them than it does anything we have done. And finally, "millions hate us"? Maybe. But millions more would risk their lives just for the chance to live in America. This has been the case since our founding. Ever wonder why? Why do so many millions of people from all over the world risk everything to try to come to America and not, say, Finland? You really need to stop reading Zinn and Chomsky. The 'Blame America First' left has absolutely no idea what they are proposing to destroy.
With all due respect, this is your failure and should not result in government regulation. It is your responsibility to understand what you are signing or committing to and if you aren't going to read the fine print then it's all on you. Asking the gov to step in and save you from your own laziness or ignorance is what fosters a dependent society and an out of control behemoth of a government. Learn to take care of your own business and don't expect anyone else to do it for you.
I am a woman who agrees with you. I have a master's degree, I work full time and I earn significantly more money than my husband. Still, we celebrate many of the traditional aspects of our 'roles' as husband and wife. He likes to be the gentleman, and always opens my car door, he places our order at restaurants (after asking me what I want, of course), he opens doors for me, etc. I like to cook and enjoy making romantic dinners, I pick out lots of his clothes, and I handle most aspects of our social life. We also are pretty traditional in our parenting. We like it this way, and there is nothing wrong with that :-)
It is interesting to note that Reed was invited to and attended the 2014 Bilderburg conference. I wonder why a lowly Mayor of Atlanta would be invited to arguably the most secret and exclusive meeting of the powers that be. As Dean Garrison points out, it is also interesting that just 2 months after attending that meeting, Atlanta receives Ebola patients: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/ebola-bilderberg-atlanta-mayor-kasim-reed/
First of all, you seem to be mathematically challenged. You cannot just add the percentage gains together to come up with overall gain numbers. Secondly, it isn't logical to tie the gains or losses to a particular president's term. You need to tie them to the policies in place at the time. A democratic president may have a republican controlled congress or vice versa, which directly impacts actual policy. For example, the housing market bubble which directly led to the economic collapse was the result of democratic policies that forced banks to lend money to people who had no chance in hell of paying back the loans. This was to make lending more 'fair'. The government had to back those loans in order for the banks to make them--bankers aren't stupid and don't make bad loans. But when the government promises to back those loans if they default, banks have nothing to lose and will lend money to anyone with a pulse, with no money down and no proof of income. Which is exactly what they did. And then, entirely predictably, huge swaths of those loans went sour and we had to bail them out. This problem was further complicated by the derivative mortgage market, but I won't go there for simplicity sake. Lastly, the stock market is a very poor indicator of actual economic reality. Take right now, for example. Wall Street has been getting richer and richer under Obama, while Mainstreet is getting poorer and poorer. The stock market is being propped up by the free money (QE) the Fed has been throwing at it for the past 5 years. Companies are buying back their own stock at record levels to further prop up the price. All the while, the real economy is completely stagnant at, best. Worst part, just like lots of regular Joe's lost their shirts in the market in 2008, it is going to happen again. Institutional investors have made a killing over the past 5 years while the regular folks who got burned in 2008 have held back. Now, the regular Joe's are starting to believe that the market is going to continue to go up and they are piling their money in just when the institutional investors are pulling out in preparation for the next crash. The average Joe's money is referred to by the pro's as "dumb money". You can almost always predict a coming crash when the smart money starts leaving and the dumb money starts pouring in. Be careful out there.
You are incorrect. "BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009. It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months." From FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/reid-wrong-on-bushs-economic-record/
You should really read the BLS reports and not just jump for joy that 200,000 (or whatever number) of jobs were created in a given month. If you did read the report, here is a little bit of what you would discover that neither the media or the administration will ever mention. Every month some people leave the workforce (die, retire) and others enter (people who just reached working age, coming back after raising the kids). So if more people are entering the workforce than are leaving the workforce, we need to have jobs for them or else the unemployment rate will go up. Right now, we need between 350,000 and 400,000 new jobs per month just to break even. That's why you have a July jobs report showing we added 200K+ jobs, but the unemployment rate still went UP. It is absolutely meaningless to talk about how many jobs were created without the context of how many we actually need. The other little trick the admin pulls is in how they calculate the unemployment rate. The rate is the percentage of people "in the workforce", which means they can and want to work, divided by the number of people who actually have jobs. To make it simple, lets say we have 10 people who want jobs and 5 people who actually have them--that gives 5/10, or a 50% unemployment rate. If you want to make that look better without actually putting more people to work, you can adjust the "in the workforce" number, which is what this administration does. They have stopped including people who are still out of work but whose unemployment benefits have run out. Using our previous example, let's say that accounts for 2 people. Now we have 5/8, or only 37.5% unemployment. Magic! They also mess with the "has a job number" by counting people who want to work full time but only have part time jobs. So now I can say we have 7/8 people employed, or a 12.5% unemployment rate! Wow! All that 'improvement' and not one single additional real person actually working. I don't care who is in office--they are lying to you, me and all the American people. The only way things will ever improve is if we educate ourselves so we can hold them accountable. Swallowing everything they tell us hook, line and sinker is exactly what they are counting on. They think we're idiots and we are, in large part, proving them right. Don't be an idiot.
And I guess you missed the news this morning that it was actually Hamas who bombed the UN school.
1 - 10 Next