• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
However many people want to do just that.
Because he's a racist?

I don't think so, so where are we going with that?



No.

They want to relegate history where it belongs: museums and history books, not celebrate in the public square things that ought not be celebrated - like people who specifically fought against America to become their own country, as well as for slavery.

The people sanitizing and forgetting history are the ones who can't seem to remember that separate but equal is not equal, that voting is a God-given right which must not be abridged for political purposes, and that the Russians are the bad guys.
Look to what Robert E Lee did after the war and compare that to Nathan Forrest. Yet you want to lump them into the same pile.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I really can’t say. He is, at the very least, racially insensitive (or used to be so in the past).
And society as a whole, and in his world in particular, did not object.

Once again we have something printed in a yearbook. That indicates it was not something about which people were ashamed. I'm sure plenty of things are censored or prohibited from a yearbook. That wasn't.

That means, most likely, a yearbook staff chose the picture and a member of the faculty approved it.

It's easy for him and us to look back and say that was wrong. It's been clarified since then. Apparently a bright line has been drawn somewhere between then and now. I suspect someone somewhere is just scanning all yearbooks everywhere to convict famous people of doing something they were permitted to do without repurcussion at the time. (This isn't like something done in secret - it was done in public.)

I don't hold it against my mother that she said insensitive things about gay people in the 80's as much as I give her credit for eventually "getting it" when faced with the choice in the 90's.

People will take the situation under advisement and vote for him or not, and then it's over.
 

draybook

Well-Known Member
https://www.yahoo.com/news/campaigning-trudeau-vows-canada-assault-rifle-ban-171528158.html

From what I'm finding on the web, these "assault rifles" aren't Canada's major problems when it comes to firearms homicides. Matter of fact, the numbers I'm finding are showing that just over 75%of Canada's firearms deaths are suicides. Surely this can't be something he's whipping up to distract voters from his blackface ordeal in the face of trying to be re-elected?
 

Lensman

Premium Member
I'm a out and flaming gay man who grew up in rural North Carolina, live in Orlando now, and I cannot recall a time in my life where I encountered white supremacy. It is a lovely, inaccurate, fable that the south is rife with intolerance and hatred when in fact the opposite is true. The left likes to pretend the south doesn't exists because we are complex region in this great country. What they don't realize is that pretending we are an inferior part of the USA, they're ostracizing the people they supposedly care about the most.....the poor and minorities. Unless you live in New England or California, Democrats don't give a crap.
I draw the opposite conclusion, I see a lot of democrats looking to "meddle" in the affairs of states like Alabama and Georgia by looking to national laws and the Federal Constitution for "universal" rights that override laws passed by those states. This to me doesn't sound like they don't care about people living in those states. It sounds like they care for the poor and underprivileged people in those states very much - really all the people there.

Same with Federal minimum wage. It's not a problem for New York or California since they have higher minimum wage already. The argument about Federal minimum wage is about the states that don't set a higher one themselves. We can argue about whether a higher minimum wage is a good thing or a bad thing, economically, but I don't think it's fair to accuse the left of not caring about the people in the red states. OTOH, I don't think I trust the GOP as much to not target policy to disadvantage the blue states. This is part of what I think will further narrow their base. I hope this reverses because I prefer some of their more business-friendly policies.

Plus it's the rich city-folk who end up paying more in Federal taxes than they get back anyway.

Note: I'm a rich city-dweller myself, so you can perhaps discount what I say. I'm probably also under-accounting for some benefits I'm receiving in return for all those Federal tax dollars I pay every year.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
And society as a whole, and in his world in particular, did not object.

Once again we have something printed in a yearbook. That indicates it was not something about which people were ashamed. I'm sure plenty of things are censored or prohibited from a yearbook. That wasn't.

That means, most likely, a yearbook staff chose the picture and a member of the faculty approved it.

It's easy for him and us to look back and say that was wrong. It's been clarified since then. Apparently a bright line has been drawn somewhere between then and now. I suspect someone somewhere is just scanning all yearbooks everywhere to convict famous people of doing something they were permitted to do without repurcussion at the time. (This isn't like something done in secret - it was done in public.)

I don't hold it against my mother that she said insensitive things about gay people in the 80's as much as I give her credit for eventually "getting it" when faced with the choice in the 90's.

People will take the situation under advisement and vote for him or not, and then it's over.
I don’t doubt many people thought it was fine when he did it, and many (though fewer) people would still think it’s fine today, but 2001 isn’t long enough ago for me to give him a pass. Donning a costume is one thing, but going to such lengths to blacken your skin even when the theme doesn’t demand it is really weird to me, particularly given that he was a 29-year-old teacher at the time.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
Mediabiasfactcheck:
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources
Why do you even bother quoting Media Bias Fact Check when quoting an opinion piece from a fellow at the Center for American Progress? Are you trying to convince us that you refrain from quoting biased articles?

Anyway, the guy is clearly not an economist. The logic of the article is preposterous.

Attributing the divergence between projections and actuals to the ACA, which every sensible economist would agree had minimal cost controls, instead of to the inherent uncertainly of these projections is intellectually dishonest. One needs only look at the divergence before nearly all of the ACA kicked in to know that such an attribution is nonsensical without a much more in-depth analysis. In 2010, the CMS report projected 2013 NHE would be $3.101 trillion. It was actually 2.919 trillion. A nearly $200 billion difference, before virtually all of the ACA kicked in, and just 3 years after these projections were made, hence substantially less uncertainty than 7 years after. CMS also projected much higher health insurance enrollment than actually occurred. Far less people signed up on the exchanges than anticipated and due to the Supreme Court decision, far less people enrolled in Medicaid than was expected at the time.

CMS freely admits that these projections are rife with uncertainty, and they have a long history of substantially overestimating future NHE.

Put simply, Ezekiel Emanuel doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
 
Last edited:

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
What they don't realize is that pretending we are an inferior part of the USA, they're ostracizing the people they supposedly care about the most.....the poor and minorities.
Though I disagree with the book’s author regarding many of his beliefs (Orwell had a favorable view toward socialism it turns out), I continue to love the this excerpt from The Road to Wigan Pier:
It may be said, however, that even if the theoretical book-trained Socialist is not a working man himself, at least he is actuated by a love of the working class. He is endeavouring to shed his bourgeois status and fight on the side of the proletariat — that, obviously, must be his motive.

But is it? Sometimes I look at a Socialist — the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation — and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? Shaw himself declares that you can only bring a working man on the stage ‘as an object of compassion’; in practice he doesn’t bring him on even as that, but merely as a sort of W. W. Jacobs figure of fun — the ready-made comic East Ender, like those in Major Barbara and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion. At best his attitude to the working class is the sniggering Punch attitude, in more serious moments (consider, for instance, the young man who symbolizes the dispossessed classes in Misalliance) he finds them merely contemptible and disgusting. Poverty and, what is more, the habits of mind created by poverty, are something to be abolished from above, by violence if necessary; perhaps even preferably by violence. Hence his worship of ‘great’ men and appetite for dictatorships, Fascist or Communist; for to him, apparently (vide his remarks apropos of the Italo-Abyssinian war and the Stalin-Wells conversations), Stalin and Mussolini are almost equivalent persons. You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb’s autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.
I must say, I get goosebumps reading the last bit. I’m not sure why. Here it is again:

“On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.”
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom