Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When they use their skin color to demand and get special treatment, privileges at my the expense of my rights, liberty, and wealth I care, greatly.
So, as a white man, like myself, you feel those who are minorities get all the breaks? Well, let's try your tactic. Quit whining about being born white and disenfranchised. I had nothing to do with you losing your birth given privilege, and I am tired of hearing you whine about. Next thing you know, you will want to secede or something with your assault rifles. See how stupid you sound on both fronts?
FYI: It's country, not county. You misspelled it twice in your first post twice--genius.
You insist on skipping on the surface of an issue that is 12,000 feet deep, while throwing stones. Drop the ad-hominems and dig deeper. As long as you, and people like you, insist on labeling any opinion that is antithetical to your agenda as 'racist' this country will continue to hurdle toward inter-ethnic disaster. Hurling the term 'racist' whenever a particular group speaks up for themselves is hateful. Every group wishes for the right to self-determination, and white people are no different. My advice is to listen to what people are really saying and what they really want. You are likely to find that it isn't all that bad, lest you feel the right to impinge upon all communities and manners of living (values and culture). If that's the case, I have some Orthodox Jewish, Amish, Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities for you to consider harassing as well; although I don't recommend it. You also have to take into account that, right or wrong, the European-American population has fought in and suffered the most deaths in wars of almost any people of country in the world over the past two-hundred years. A large percentage of us come from families that have four generations of combat veterans, and many have lost family members (including me). This does convey a sense of ownership, especially when people are disrespectful about their feelings of entitlement. Soft shoes and voices are recommended. When immigrants put in three generations of combat service, then they too will feel sense of ownership. These factors cannot be ignored. People new to this country are NOT politically nor culturally equal to generations of families who have sacrificed so much.
My agenda? Oh boy, I know your rant is going to be a conspiracy filled mess of racism and illogical thinking just based off of those two words. SMH
So you think European Americans own America as well? This is a fundamentally racist position that leaves no room for discussion. To believe that America belongs to Europeans is a foundation-ally racist perspective. There is no other way to look at.
In fact people new to this nation that become citizens that's their history too as Americans, they are equal to other Americans and have just as much right to decide/impact the cultural or political direction of their own nation as any other American.
Again to argue anything else on the basis of skin color is fundamentally racist.
To pretend that Europeans most of whom just got here compared to African Americans most of whom can trace their American history for far longer than the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans in this nation means Europeans don't own America or American history or American heritage.
Well that's easy, he didn't. He presided over accumulating $6T more in debt, but he didn't spend that much. The ACA has just started to outlaw money, but there are also tax increases included in that.
So in 6 years the debt has grown by over 50% of the amount that was accumulated in the past two and a half centuries, but Obama didn't spend that much. That's what we call "delusional thinking."
Quote:
As for the spending.
Most of that was preplanned spending; SS and medicare for example.
SNAP and other safety nets were utilized which also added to the debt.
The TARP and stimulus was already set in motion. TARP has been paid back though.
The war spending he couldn't really do much about.
All of that is irrelevant. It's like me saying that my mortgage payment isn't my fault because I am required to make those payments. I bought the house, therefore the mortgage expense is my fault.
Did Obama ever once advocate reducing or reforming any of those programs? No, he did not.
Quote:
On the other hand, Reagan cut taxes and then increased spending. He tried to reverse course and increase taxes, but he wasn't able to get back on track. Then Bush 2.0 came along and cut taxes again and went to war without paying for the tax cuts or the war.
And yet the national debt rose by less in 8 years of Bush than it has in 6 years of Obama. So trying to shift blame onto Bush doesn't work.
Quote:
It's not like people weren't warned. In 2002, a bunch of economists predicted us having a budgetary crisis and predicted that we would have trouble funding the government and essential services.
So in 6 years the debt has grown by over 50% of the amount that was accumulated in the past two and a half centuries, but Obama didn't spend that much. That's what we call "delusional thinking."
Well it's reality, but okay. It's like I said up thread, most all of the programs were already in place, so you can't blame him for those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
All of that is irrelevant. It's like me saying that my mortgage payment isn't my fault because I am required to make those payments. I bought the house, therefore the mortgage expense is my fault.
No, it's like saying you just got hired to be a CEO and the previous CEO's cut prices and made obligations that you can't keep up with. In your example you had perfect control over the decisions - Obama did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Did Obama ever once advocate reducing or reforming any of those programs? No, he did not.
What difference would it make? Congress is responsible for passing laws and they won't work together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
And yet the national debt rose by less in 8 years of Bush than it has in 6 years of Obama. So trying to shift blame onto Bush doesn't work.
The biggest cause of the deficit is from the tax cuts, the recession, and the wars. Don't you ever wonder why Reagan raised taxes 11 times?
Well that's great. Then the Democrats should have agreed to the spending cuts that Republicans wanted. But they didn't.
The only spending cuts that will make any difference are going to be to the military, Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. Cutting food stamps doesn't help. The main driver of the budget is Medicare.
America becoming majority minority is a good thing only if that minority is Asian.
Asian's commit the lest amount of crimes and are better educated than the white majority.
Unfortunately that's not the case Hispanics will be the majority at some point. The problem with that is Hispanics commit more crimes as a percent of their population. They also have a smaller percentage graduating high school and college.
That means there will be more crimes and less educated people. Unless Hispanics improve their education and crime stats then it will not be a good thing for America.
My agenda? Oh boy, I know your rant is going to be a conspiracy filled mess of racism and illogical thinking just based off of those two words. SMH
So you think European Americans own America as well? This is a fundamentally racist position that leaves no room for discussion. To believe that America belongs to Europeans is a foundation-ally racist perspective. There is no other way to look at.
In fact people new to this nation that become citizens that's their history too as Americans, they are equal to other Americans and have just as much right to decide/impact the cultural or political direction of their own nation as any other American.
Again to argue anything else on the basis of skin color is fundamentally racist.
To pretend that Europeans most of whom just got here compared to African Americans most of whom can trace their American history for far longer than the vast overwhelming majority of Europeans in this nation means Europeans don't own America or American history or American heritage.
Illogical thinking? My thinking is the epitome of logic. You'll be lucky to keep up, and are already doing a pitiful job and reverting to your illegitmate intellectual crutch: accusations of racism. For your information, we all have an 'agenda'. All politics is agenda oriented. Understand? Are we ready to drop the sophomoric reactions and move on?
I don't think a group "owns" anything, but that's also not the language that we generally use when discussing inter-group politics. You're inserting innapropriate language just so you can attack the language that you use. That's the tactic of someone who has no argument, or otherwise lacks the ability to actually engage the issues. It's a rhetorical fallacy, which is the primary red-flag for lack-of-logic in discourse. You won't find me using rhetorical fallacies like the ad-hominems and straw men that you employ. Your accusations of il-logic are ironic, but I'll forgive and forget them for now but not in the future. You will simply concede the argument when you use them in the future. Moving on.
European-Americans inhabit the United States. That's the correct language, and it leaves plenty of room for discussion. That European Americans protest any felt disenfranchisement either culturally, politically, or geographically is no more racist than it is when any other group protests foreign group colonialism or incursion into the territory in which they inhabit. Such incursion ruptures communities, displaces populations, causes political strife, and sometimes war. These are all results, of such inter-ethnic proximity, that have occured widely throughout history. Feeling the ethnic pressure that begins this process, and protesting against it, is not racist. You're over-simplification of the issue, likely to the benefit of your group, is self-serving, over-simplified, and ultimately disastrous. You fail to HEAR the complaints of a large group of people. That will lead to disaster and, moreover, is anti-humanist and senseless.
I can tell by your grammar that you're likely very young or a new immigrant. I wish you well in your journey, but realize that you are speaking very superficially about very complex politics that you don't quite understand. The "racism" bludgeon will ultimately backfire on you.
I'll leave you with a few rhetorical questions. No need to answer if you don't wish to. Just think about them:
1. Is it racist for Africans to protest European or Asian colonialism?
2. Is China just for the Chinese?
3. Is Palestine just for the Palestinians?
4. Is Tibet jsut for the Tibetans?
5. Is Europe just for the Europeans?
6. Is it right for Israel to be the Jewish State?
7. Is anti-racism the ultimate justice, even if it were to hypothetically destroy civilization? (remember, this is hypothetical and so you don't have to agree with the premise as it may or may not occur in real life, you only have to consider the question as it is presented). Or, is anti-racism a means to an end rather than the end itself, and therefore is it right for it to be constantly re-evaluated for the effects that it has?
I disagree that new citizens are on-par with citizens whose families have sacrificed family members and served in the military. If you believe that this is such, then you are dissociated from the core culture of this country which, by virtue of its almost constant status as a nation-at-war, has a warrior culture at its heart. We can agree to disagree, but I hold that you don't understand the heart of American culture if you believe otherwise. Also, I disagree that immigrants should become members of any nation with the intent to change their culture. I would never be so arrogant to apsire to become a French or Chinese citizen and change their culture. Becoming a member of a nation generally means that you are agreeing to be a member of the nation, and not a counter-cultural force within the nation. Such an agreement is a tacit good-faith agreement between the group and the outsider, and it applies the world-over. The group agrees to accept the outsider and the outsider agrees to become a productive member of the group-at-large. To break this agreement does much to break the trust between nations and outsiders the world over and, I must say, is as irrationally arrogant in its entitlement as it is politically destructive.
You should never be suprised, ever, when hostility from the larger group is directed toward the outsider when they adopt entitled perspectives such as yours. You seem to think that the world is your political and cultural plaything to which you can do as much damage and hurl as much abuse as you wish. I'm here to tell you that such immaturity will have consequences that you did not intend, and that you should attempt to gain some maturity in both your general politics and your emotional intelligence.
My priority is the freedom and political self-determination of ALL people. I believe in the betterment of human civilization, and not adherence to the religion of any one ideal that is too often left unquestioned. If your priority is the religion, you will be attempting to steer civilization according to an idea while being ultimately blind and indifferent to the results.
So, as a white man, like myself, you feel those who are minorities get all the breaks? Well, let's try your tactic. Quit whining about being born white and disenfranchised. I had nothing to do with you losing your birth given privilege, and I am tired of hearing you whine about. Next thing you know, you will want to secede or something with your assault rifles. See how stupid you sound on both fronts?
No I don't really see that, because affirmative action exists in law. It's right there in black and white that minorities get preference in college entrance, small business loans, government contracts, etc. So what sounds stupid is not what he said, but your attempts to deny the reality he spoke of.
Quote:
FYI: It's country, not county. You misspelled it twice in your first post twice--genius.
FYI: picking on someone's spelling just makes you look petty.
I disagree that new citizens are on-par with citizens whose families have sacrificed family members and served in the military. If you believe that this is such, then you are dissociated from the core culture of this country which, by virtue of its almost constant status as a nation-at-war, has a warrior culture at its heart. We can agree to disagree, but I hold that you don't understand the heart of American culture if you believe otherwise. Also, I disagree that immigrants should become members of any nation with the intent to change their culture. I would never be so arrogant to apsire to become a French or Chinese citizen and change their culture. Becoming a member of a nation generally means that you are agreeing to be a member of the nation, and not a counter-cultural force within the nation. Such an agreement is a tacit good-faith agreement between the group and the outsider, and it applies the world-over. The group agrees to accept the outsider and the outsider agrees to become a productive member of the group-at-large. To break this agreement does much to break the trust between nations and outsiders the world over and, I must say, is as irrationally arrogant in its entitlement as it is politically destructive.
I am an natural-born US citizen...and even I disagree with this. Yes, new citizens are "on-par" with others...no matter the circumstance. I strongly disagree with labeling whole segments of the population as "better Americans" or "better people". On an individual level, people may be better than others...but that can not be scaled to groups based on what is observed with a few people. Even people who are part of the "established" culture don't have a monopoly on American-ness.
If that doesn't conform to the "core culture" of this country, so be it. I could care less about conforming to the "core-culture". Besides, culture is a fluid object - always changing. So to assume, just because we are the majority, that we can hold it forever in stasis is ludicrous. To react against "counter-culture" is silly and pointless - we need counter culture to keep the culture moving along. Otherwise we turn into some vast, non-living conformity-minded monolith at the logical end (i.e. Borgs in Star Trek). Change is an inevitable and necessary part of life. Always.
Last edited by KC_Sleuth; 08-15-2014 at 08:44 AM..
America becoming majority minority is a good thing only if that minority is Asian.
Asian's commit the lest amount of crimes and are better educated than the white majority.
Unfortunately that's not the case Hispanics will be the majority at some point. The problem with that is Hispanics commit more crimes as a percent of their population. They also have a smaller percentage graduating high school and college.
That means there will be more crimes and less educated people. Unless Hispanics improve their education and crime stats then it will not be a good thing for America.
Look at Asia. Look at Europe. Both historically and in modern times. With the exception of Japan, there is no Asian country that comes close to matching Western Europe (lack of corruption, living standards and quality of life, infrastructure, education, lack of organized crime, etc.) . Especially Europe which is relatively isolated from mass population movement (ie: Scandanavia). You have to look at results and stop idealizing isolated numbers for small isolated groups living in very large foreign countries. Additionally, the "Asians" here (which come from all over) are not better educated as a wide group. Your assertion only holds up when isolating the Chinese, for example. The Chinese that come here are mostly very wealthy, as they come here as nouveau riche from China's manufacturing boom, and can afford to put more resources into their kids. They are are extreme example of a privileged class, for the most part. As the country of China itself exemplifies, your idealization of them wouldn't hold up if their numbers were to grow. I'm assuming that you have an accurate perception of the reality of modern China. You can take pre- or post cultural revolution China as an example. It doesn't matter.
Last edited by golgi1; 08-15-2014 at 10:01 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
