- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The difference is that the Vietnamese weren't constantly being told, for generations,that they were victims who needed special government help to get ahead. Once a people get institutionalized they will respond just as institutionalized people anywhere would, and gratefully vote for those who made them that way.
Really smacks of Stockholm syndrome doesn't it.....
You keep proving my point for me, the higher the poverty the more dangerous the city is.I am absolutely sure that I am paying attention to (and understanding) the links. The lower the number the more dangerous the city is on your 1 to 100 scale - it is you that have it backwards.
I am talking also talking about violent crime rates in U.S. cities, per 1,000 residents - in this case the lower the number the safer the city is for each given category of violent crime.
Phoenix ----- Murder 0.08 Rape 0.38 Robbery 2.27 Assault 2.79
Chicago ----- Murder 0.16 Rape ??? Robbery 5.17 Assault 4.59
Philadelphia -- Murder 0.21 Rape 0.54 Robbery 5.37 Assault 5.77
Dallas ------- Murder 0.11 Rape 0.35 Robbery 3.33 Assault 3.03
Houston ----- Murder 0.09 Rape 0.36 Robbery 3.77 Assault 5.56
I think it's what some Black people call "Keeping them on the plantation". Columnist Star Parker tells Hannity: Slave plantations were run by liberal Democrats | The Raw Story
You keep proving my point for me, the higher the poverty the more dangerous the city is.
This is about as stupid of a answer as I've seen in a while. Yes, Democrats did have plantations and the Republicans were the ones who wanted to their freedom, and then the two switched. To equate slavery to liberalism is something only a shill for the GOP would do.
This is about as stupid of a answer as I've seen in a while. Yes, Democrats did have plantations and the Republicans were the ones who wanted to their freedom, and then the two switched. To equate slavery to liberalism is something only a shill for the GOP would do.
Exactly. It is, in fact, the other way around.Poverty doesn't cause "lowered education standards"..poverty doesn't cause drug abuse...
Agreed. It's almost like Stockholm Syndrome on a grand scale.The difference is that the Vietnamese weren't constantly being told, for generations,that they were victims who needed special government help to get ahead. Once a people get institutionalized they will respond just as institutionalized people anywhere would, and gratefully vote for those who made them that way.
And then the two switched, huh? I've heard that story often but have never seen the evidence. Instead we continue to see racism and exploitation from the Democrats all the way down the line, and it continues today. The facts just keep piling up.
But at least you acknowledge that the Democrats were on the wrong side of history for almost 200 years. Some leftists don't even admit that.
Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.
Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."
Not admitting to being a leftist denotes some good sense and, honestly, i couldn't feel any better.That would be because I'm not a leftist? Or whatever imaginary term you want to use to make yourself feel better.
There is plenty of evidence if you'd bother to read it, I can see why you wouldn't want to though. After all when you support a political party, as apparently you do, I'd hate to read how the once grand ol party stood for freedom and now despises it.
There are several more that repeat the same information with different wording but the idea is the same. Businesses at one time wanted government over sight to help them build their companies, once they were done they switched parties loyalty to get want they wanted again, IE Lobbyists, this time in the form of supposedly "wanting smaller federal oversight" after they had already taken advantage of the government help to begin with.
Most civic classes and high schools are riddled with opinions rather than facts. A young scholar cannot escape them. Only after they enter the real world where facts are more readily available do they finally realize the hoaxes committed on their impressionable minds. Of course some others stay stupid until they die.Really, this should be a basic civics course for nearly all high schools around the country, maybe into college but US History should be an educational requirement.
I guess I'm unsure what you mean wrong side of history since the US was one of the last places to remove owning of humans for workers.
The Civil War was 150 years ago but the Democrats owned slaves well before that, which is why I mentioned 200 years.However; if you wish to nitpick that much you'll be pleased to know it was only around 150 yrs or so. It does seem fitting that the GOP would be on the wrong side of history concerning civil rights when they supposedly supported them 200 or so years ago.
I'm not even sure if you understands the terms of what you are talking about at this point. I do find it rather amusing that you go to interesting lengths to label someone you don't know. I am quite sure I do not know you and won't presume things about your position unless you decided to explain it to me. I guess I shouldn't expect the same courtesy, which does give away a few clues but I'd rather not predicate a decision based purely on conjure.Not admitting to being a leftist denotes some good sense and, honestly, i couldn't feel any better.
It wasn't an insult, although if you choose to take it at a such, thus is your own ignorance. There is nothing wrong with not knowing about a subject for ignorance can be changed and challenged.Are you certain you want to get into a situation where all we do is insult each other? Snide is for teenage bimbos..
In your opinion, of course. However, if you had bothered to read the article like I said is one of many you'd see the source she used was: Eric Rauchway now while you might disagree with his assessment of how the parties changed sides, do not casually dismiss something unless you decided to read it. That would be called willful ignorance, which is very unbecoming. I'd love to see a counter link? Perhaps someone else's educated opinion backed with their expertise showing something different.That's an opinion piece designed for people who don't really have time or interest to look at the real thing. Please don't bother submitting an opinion of some obscure person as fact.
Most things are in this world sadly. The almighty dollar isn't a bad thing to strive for, but when you step on people to make your way in the world you are doing the world and yourself a huge disservice. Not everyone is able to be top of the food chain in terms of business but there is no reason people can't live and still enjoy what they do no?Yes, it's all about Big Business, right? But you're not a leftist. I'd probably deny it as well but in fact your words belie your claim.
Ahh a cynic of the education provided today. I'd say I am quite surprised by that. Considering you enjoy facts and logic, and today's education standards are quite full of them. You may disagree with the syllabuses of some classes but around the country they are quite standardized(Especially History, Math, Science). I am sorry you are disappointed with your own educational background, that isn't a reason to shun away from what you were taught. Although if you are of the McCarthyism generation I can understand wanting to get away from that terrible legacy. That was a dark mark on American History.Most civic classes and high schools are riddled with opinions rather than facts. A young scholar cannot escape them. Only after they enter the real world where facts are more readily available do they finally realize the hoaxes committed on their impressionable minds. Of course some others stay stupid until they die.
Actually it was, the US was not leading the way to abolish slavery in any form. It was one of the last civilized countries to do so. The list is rather large, but the ones that beat the US to abolishing slavery would be, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, & Netherlands, the first place to ban slavery was Norway. Viking descendants are awesome like that. I'd be curious to know where you think you can own a person today(in the US). Last I checked it was and still is illegal. Now if you are talking human trafficking I think we can agree that is still illegal.No, it was not. In fact its still going on today. And many Americans (Republicans) fought and died to free Black people from the bondage of slave owners (Democrats).
The Civil War was 150 years ago but the Democrats owned slaves well before that, which is why I mentioned 200 years.
n your opinion, of course. However, if you had bothered to read the article like I said is one of many you'd see the source she used was: Eric Rauchway now while you might disagree with his assessment of how the parties changed sides, do not casually dismiss something unless you decided to read it. That would be called willful ignorance, which is very unbecoming. I'd love to see a counter link? Perhaps someone else's educated opinion backed with their expertise showing something different.
Yes, quite.Most things are in this world sadly. The almighty dollar isn't a bad thing to strive for, but when you step on people to make your way in the world you are doing the world and yourself a huge disservice. Not everyone is able to be top of the food chain in terms of business but there is no reason people can't live and still enjoy what they do no?
Why should you be surprised? The conversation is about the inner cities and the lack of a good education within. Are you satisfied with the system?Ahh a cynic of the education provided today. I'd say I am quite surprised by that.
Considering you enjoy facts and logic, and today's education standards are quite full of them. You may disagree with the syllabuses of some classes but around the country they are quite standardized(Especially History, Math, Science). I am sorry you are disappointed with your own educational background, that isn't a reason to shun away from what you were taught. Although if you are of the McCarthyism generation I can understand wanting to get away from that terrible legacy. That was a dark mark on American History.
nor did i say it was.Actually it was, the US was not leading the way to abolish slavery in any form.
It was one of the last civilized countries to do so. The list is rather large, but the ones that beat the US to abolishing slavery would be, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, & Netherlands, the first place to ban slavery was Norway. Viking descendants are awesome like that. I'd be curious to know where you think you can own a person today(in the US). Last I checked it was and still is illegal. Now if you are talking human trafficking I think we can agree that is still illegal.
Accurate is more acceptable, and you still have yet to show anything different. So I'll go ahead and leave it as it is. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your world view but you are contesting something that is accepted in academia and among historians. I'll take their opinion over yours, sorry. Especially when you present nothing to the contrary.I read it. It's an opinion piece with selected bits of history. I've actually read quite a bit on how, after many decades, the parties somehow inexplicably, and rather suddenly, changed to polar opposites. This one is a little different, but still silly.
If we'd not have that same poverty rates the schools could be improved because the parents of said kids would want to see the schools improved as opposed to continually impoverished.Why should you be surprised? The conversation is about the inner cities and the lack of a good education within. Are you satisfied with the system?
Of course they are, I didn't dispute that. It doesn't change the fact that US schools are standardized in many areas of study, namely History, Science, and Math. I'm speaking of public schools not private ones.In fact many schools throughout the world come ahead of the United States in education but I believe it is only Switzerland who spends more per student. This is an opportunity to learn.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795
Civilized as in 1800s civilized there are quite a few more civilized countries now than there were in the 1800s and before. I'm surprised you'd even question this. I can see your knowledge of this subject is falling a little short. That is fine, but I'd prefer not to see you spout your own opinion as fact, when it is not such.So now you've changed it to 'civilized' countries. OK, America is evil. I get it. I'd be curious also to know where you can own a person in the US. Any idea?
Sure, go ahead. Beliefs are free.Accurate is more acceptable, and you still have yet to show anything different. So I'll go ahead and leave it as it is. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your world view but you are contesting something that is accepted in academia and among historians. I'll take their opinion over yours, sorry. Especially when you present nothing to the contrary.
Well said.If we'd not have that same poverty rates the schools could be improved because the parents of said kids would want to see the schools improved as opposed to continually impoverished.
Then they are sub-standardized, right? That is their standards are lower than in countries elsewhere, and the evidence is obvious. It's on display when people infer opinion pieces as historical fact.Of course they are, I didn't dispute that. It doesn't change the fact that US schools are standardized in many areas of study, namely History, Science, and Math. I'm speaking of public schools not private ones.
Civilized as in 1800s civilized there are quite a few more civilized countries now than there were in the 1800s and before. I'm surprised you'd even question this. I can see your knowledge of this subject is falling a little short. That is fine, but I'd prefer not to see you spout your own opinion as fact, when it is not such.
No, it is still around. Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy - Kevin Bales - Google BooksOn top of that you said slavery is still around I guess that was a mistake?
Ok.Sure, go ahead. Beliefs are free.
Well said.
Standardized as in the same no matter which state you live in.Then they are sub-standardized, right? That is their standards are lower than in countries elsewhere, and the evidence is obvious. It's on display when people infer opinion pieces as historical fact.
I realize my grammar is a bit older than your own, but that doesn't make the sentence incorrect.My opinion is not such? Public school, right?
Yeah, so it isn't around in the US, which is the entire point I was making.No, it is still around. Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy - Kevin Bales - Google Books
Great....now one of the feral, subhuman monsters claims they were buying crack from Belton.
Suspect in WWII vet slay: We were buying crack from victim - U.S. News
That did it. Get a rope.
Great....now one of the feral, subhuman monsters claims they were buying crack from Belton.
Suspect in WWII vet slay: We were buying crack from victim - U.S. News
That did it. Get a rope.
This is about as stupid of a answer as I've seen in a
while. Yes, Democrats did have plantations and the Republicans were the ones who wanted to their freedom, and then the two switched. To equate slavery to liberalism is something only a shill for the GOP would do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?