Delete This Account

FYI: that's an AP article on the ESPN website. jw

i hate racism. and if that makes me a liberal, then i'm guilty as sin. because dave in elma's a bigot. and that's the truth. jw no. i just hate the suburbs. i think they're inhumane. jw

but how does that explain how soul-less a suburban strip mall might be ... (i keed, i keed). jw

the push to the suburbs had already begun, tracing it well back to Levittown. and it was no different in Detroit. of course the riots furthered the flight, but it had begun well before that. since there were no riots in Buffalo, what then do you consider the cause here? jw

right. when you make a point, i should accept it as fact and not quibble. and when i make a point, it's open for interpretation and name-calling. got it. jw i don't know if i've ever placed a dollar amount on greed. and i think i've tried to explain myself on whom i consider greedheads: be corporations taking out life-insurance policies on employees, scam artists preying on the weak and elderly, the wall street shysters who turned the housing market into a ponzi scheme. as for this stuff about getting money in return from Wall Street, why was it that it was more difficult to get a loan immediately following the stimulus? i don't think we'll ever agree. jw

because no one who is rich is greedy? so greed is ultimately good, well, there goes my value system. as for my ripping off comment, there's context involved that you might have missed. it was pointed at a poster who suggests he doesn't want his money redistributed to the inner cities, to which i guess, he doesn't mind having his tax dollars redistributed to Wall Street, where there are people far more in need. jw hey, i point out what i perceive to be flaws in LABillz suggestions, and you come back with that? i guess there is a class system developing in this nation because equal suddenly sounds like exceptions. or has that been the dirty secret all along? jw

i hope you're not suggesting we replace one government program with another in legislating how people should live, is it? and why not take it one step further, anyone applying for a job be subject to drug-testing since drugs, in fact, are illegal. because, after all, taking away one person's rights shouldn't prevent us from taking away another's, because liberty and freedom are mere catch-phrases used to fulfill the void of what's left of a national myth. and i like the logic of your volunteer suggesting. since these people have no money, except that what the government provides them, why not take away the opportunity to do any work and the chance to advance themselves by making them full-time volunteers. this way, we can keep them under thumb for eternity. jw

it's not anger. it's simply poking holes at the hypocrisy of those who say they have compassion -- well then it must be so -- and then proceed to show they don't understand the meaning of the word by dictating terms without any direction or regard. "i want people to be able to support themselves and have a sense of self worth and self respect." well, who doesn't. mere words won't make it so. and who's to say some of the people you target don't have a sense of self worth or self respect. is it up to you to determine this? and you're right, no one in poverty is attempting to improve their lives. that's a generalization that really shouldn't dignify a response. so sorry for that. jw oh, the world awaits ye. jw

with all due respect. i don't see myself as a hard-left guy, and don't encourage comparisons with Keith Olbermann, whom i watched ocassionally, and thought was a good ranter, but ultimately a blow-hard. as for the DailyKos, don't think i've ever read it. i take no offense though. as for this money-grubbing stuff, let me explain. i take no issue with people making money, especially when they come by it honestly. it's to be encouraged. what's difficult to understand is how those in positions of power are capable of rigging the system in their favor -- whether its in banking, medicine, real estate, insurance racketeers what have you -- to make a buck for the pure necessity of making a buck, without delivering any service of value, treating it all like some kind of ponzi scheme at the expense of people who could full well use the money, whether its the poor and helpless, the elderly and sick or simply the corporations who take out policies on their employees in order to make a fast buck. and i'm not talking about the doctor down the street, or the real estate broker or the local teller. it's the money-changers and the greedhounds, who there is no nobility in this, or liberal vs. conservative ideology. it's plain wrong and part of a corrupt system which has made us so accustomed to this crime that we are simply led to shrug our shoulders, look the other way and say, "it's the poor people's fault. they're the ones who are ripping us off." jw care to come up with at least a half-thought out reply, or is that the extent of your debating prowess? or have the conservatives outlawed free speech already ... jw

yes, let's suggest that the under-privileged are victims, because that's the way people want to see it, because how else can we go on with our lives other than thinking "we" can't make a difference, it's out of our hands, oh pooh-pooh. what a buncha elitist baloney. "they're no longer trying," you say. why not just stop attempting to be politically correct and come out with it and say "you're better than `them'" and feel good about getting that off your chest other than this piddle-paddling dalliance around it. for gawd's sake, if you're going to be a "classist" about it, go out and say it. i'm sure you won't hurt "their" feelings, because after all what's it matter. they are the "entitled" ones, and it's you that we must have sympathy for for your dear feelings of empathy. poor them. and it's those danged liberal policies that are backwards. perhaps we should re-introduce debtors jail, and get "them" off the streets so we won't have to put up with "them" anymore, and be forced to confront such blight, because it really is unsightly. sonofa ... just listen to yourself for a second, will ya. jw

righto. i'm always the ones who jumps to conclusions and never has to defend myself against some of the more blatant racism and elitism that exists on this portion of the board. it's my fault. dave in elma began by suggesting that Allen will get ripped for his comments. i steered away from the bait and pondered how the suburban flight is one of the reasons why urban centers have been left to rot. dave retorted that he doesn't want his wealth redistributed. prior to that, dave fondly suggested that it's liberal policies that are the root of this evil. why, lord only knows. people aren't allowed to make a living i guess, because unions are bad. geez, in a free market, people aren't allowed to make money except for those in the positions of power. wow, how fascinating. which leaves us where. urban centers left to rot? for someone seeking to have an adult conversation, please proceed without attaching flip labels to me and my views and suggesting that i'm the only over-reactionary nut job here. jw yes, all inner cities are violent hellholes. this is obtuse. and i'm accused of over-reacting. you'd rather have your cake and eat it too. keep your money and have the troubles solved as if by magic, when in fact as i've noted the trouble with inner-city poverty is in part because the tax base has been reduced by those wanting to live in the comfort of the suburbs while pooh-poohing what's going on in the city. oh my. how convenient of you. jw

so you're supposing to propose a failed conservative policy by suggesting we let urban blighted cities rot. fair enough. jw

don't forget the Timbit, eh? jw

yep, Scott Whitlock continues to prove he's biased. thanks. jw

i understand the distinction and don't entirely disagree with you. i will say that if 29 percent say they're "very satisfied," it's not much of a stretch to believe that those people are not as close to applying for visas as OC might suggest. jw

fair enough. i understand your point. though i must say that job satisfaction goes to the point OC was attempting to make, see below. OC clearly submits that doctors in Canada can't wait to leave. evidently, on the basis of this survey, there are more than a few -- more than "tons," perhaps, even -- who might feel different. jw when it comes to OC, it would be "me-say." jw

i hate to get between you and birdog, but given that someone's actually provided an actual study versus OC's claims -- which he even considers to be questionable -- that he's spoken to "tons" (how much does the average doctor weigh, anyhow?) of people, of course you've sided with heresay as opposed to actual numbers. jw

the U.S. system of social governance is absolutely and irreperably (man, i can't spell that word) flawed. i will agree to that. from what i can make of it, it's centralized government shoveling off its responsibilities to states and counties and essentially washing its hands of it. i needs to be blown up, but i can't see how that happens, given the polarizing debate and the fiefdoms these programs have created. moving forward is not really the option, and Obama's program is proof of that, because the minefield is too large, and there are far too many constituents -- HMOs, drug companies, liberals, conservatives, politicians who get their money from HMOs and drug companies -- with too much to lose to change the system that's rigged to their benefit. i might be wrong, but that's what happened from the beginning when Nixon first floated his health-care plan. there are systems that work far better than what's here, though none are perfect. there's no moral courage, i think, to address the flaws, which leaves everyone throwing money at it not in a bid to fix it, but to show they're "attempting" to do something, while otherwise lining the pockets of the rich getting richer. jw

you continue to prove yourself as a cherry-picking fraud, basing arguments on unstable and biased assumptions that fly in the face of reason or facts. you've "not heard" a doctor support Canada's health care system, and yet you acknowledge your sample is not scientific. and then you proceed to blabber on about "tons" of doctors who said something about something or other, belaboring us with tangental arguments that pretend to prove your point. who here has brought up the flawed health-care system proposed by the current administration but you? changing the subject to seemingly make a point that no one here appears to be debating. and yet you gobble on, exposing yourself as nothing but another in a long line of superior-sounding mouth-breathers who provide nothing in the way of substance except for another heaping helping of blah-blah baloney and the occasional emoticon. jw

nah, as i noted somewhere -- can't remember where -- a day after the riots, this was essentially the result of over-privileged suburban yahoos spoiling to make trouble and unable to handle their alcohol. it was no different than in 1994, when there was a riot in Vancouver after the Canucks lost Game 7 to the NY Rangers. from everything that i saw, and heard from friends back there, this had nothing to do with ethnicity or anything else, but mere drunk-filled foolery. jw

sorry, i didn't explain myself properly. what i meant to write is that i agree Canada is overly protective of its identity, something that might have been necessary 30 and 40 years ago, but no longer. Canada has reached a point of maturity where I think it can mostly stand alone without protective crutches. of course, an exception needs to be made for Quebec, which is ultra protective of its culture and would very much likely balk at any chance of this happening. but i agree with you on this point. Vancouver hasn't been homogeneous for a very long time, though the last bastion on royal ties continues to want to hang on there. In the 12 years I lived there, Vancouver was well on its way to becoming one of the continent's most diversified communities, with a large cross-section of Asians, Indians and Arabs living there already. i don't foresee that having an impact. had that been the case, we'd already see signs of fracturing. i read that recently, in Esquire perhaps. i think it was Marche's column. i like his point of view. and yes, it seems that POV is de rigeur these days. but i've always questioned it's mythical state. i won't argue that there isn't truth and the avenue for that potential. and yet, i'll also say many of my inner city school friends i grew up with in Windsor have enjoyed similar rises from lower to middle class as i. i will maintain that's easier to get from Point A to Z if you get a head start at, say M, than, perhaps D, no? jw

America lost the war of 1812. does part of that 66 percent GDP figure include all the drugs Americans go north to purchase because they're cheaper (sorry, couldn't resist ) i'd argue that Canadian individuality needs not to be so stringently protected because i believe there is a strong enough sense in and of Canada to make it distinct. while i'd agree there might be more "superwealthy" in the United States, i'd say there are far more people far better off in Canada than here. it's about time the U.S. caught up to the rest of the world by attempting to introduce socialized reforms (GG: we will never agree on this) in my interpretation, there are no exceptions to the Bible. people are people. the concent of the "pearly gates" (if that's what they might be) are open to all, rich, poor, athiests, muslims, buddhists, the inuit, whomever. that's not what i see from conservatives today, or at least those pretenders in the Republican Party, which currently is attempting to run on a plank of protecting the rich, and neglecting just about everyone else, country included. jw

no. try a logical point. yes, because you fail to make any reasonable point. your impervious streak to logic or reason remains unbroken. bested? and once again, you fail to make a point. good for you for once again proving me right. jw finally, a breath of fresh and a point of view. how's tricks, Tom? jw

oddly enough, Canada has a higher life-expectancy rate and lower child-mortality rate than the U.S., and yet, the per capita expenditure on health care in Canada is almost half of that in the U.S. and oddly enough, the percentage of government revenue spent on health in Canada is lower than that here in the U.S. now, these are mere statistics, and open to interpretation, but at the very least there's an indication that OC's point about people lining up to attend funerals in Canada has been put in question at the very least. of course, he'll soon come back with a post to inform us all how wrong i am. jw

just because you say it to be so, does not make it true. yes, last time i visited Canada, there were people dying in the streets, so many so that the funeral homes and crematoriams are over-booked and in fact have begun operating 24 hours a day to meet demand. and just because you used words to argue against my points doesn't make your musings less nonsensical. how did my family get to where it got, and was it with the help of universal health care: Here's a question oh great fact-finder. I'm 48, look up when universal health care came into being in Canada and do the math for yourself. but of course you won't. you'll come back with something about how you've bested me by railroading your dim views and pretending them to be uncompromisable, as if this is a contest and not an attempt at discussion. and if that's the case, then obviously, i can't come close to matching your unmitigated state of heightened and blind zeal. so i'll concede that point. ----- ADD: or, why waste my breath when i can simply take a page out of the OC's handbook and say: Hey guys, look at me. I've proven him wrong. jw