3rdnlng Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 You just made his head explode. According to the huffington post all liberals are compassionate and anti racist and all conservatives are evil hateful racists and thus allowing them to their fall back argument of being morally superior Not unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 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 And the reason all of this corruption exists? The inability of the intellectual liberals to admit that they cannot control the beast they continue to feed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 Any support for that? If that is true (and absent some other statistical explanation) then I'll acknowledge being wrong. Check the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Check the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Checked it out. There has been a 7.5% change in Caucasians from 2000 to 2010 (from 27% to 20%) but a negligible percentage increase in the population of blacks over that timeframe (63% to 64.5%). So there was already a pronounced black population presence in PG pre-2000. PG has long been a predominately black county. Their arrival wasn't in spades, wasn't abrupt, and didn't influence a demographic shift (nee "white flight"). There was also a 5% drop in "other races" over that timeframe. I wonder what precipitated that? There was only one racial demographic that grew significanly during that timeframe(2000-2010). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Checked it out. There has been a 7.5% change in Caucasians from 2000 to 2010 (from 27% to 20%) but a negligible percentage increase in the population of blacks over that timeframe (63% to 64.5%). So there was already a pronounced black population presence in PG pre-2000. PG has long been a predominately black county. Their arrival wasn't in spades, wasn't abrupt, and didn't influence a demographic shift (nee "white flight"). There was also a 5% drop in "other races" over that timeframe. I wonder what precipitated that? There was only one racial demographic that grew significanly during that timeframe(2000-2010). Whoa, that is OUR word, Juror8! Its 2012 dude, get with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Whoa, that is OUR word, Juror8! Its 2012 dude, get with it. Is that the "C" word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Whoa, that is OUR word, Juror8! Its 2012 dude, get with it. Apologies if I offended anyone. I hear other white people using the "C" word in Starbucks, Panera Breads and Coldstone Creameries. I just figured it was a term of endearment that I could say too since I have white friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 Checked it out. There has been a 7.5% change in Caucasians from 2000 to 2010 (from 27% to 20%) but a negligible percentage increase in the population of blacks over that timeframe (63% to 64.5%). So there was already a pronounced black population presence in PG pre-2000. PG has long been a predominately black county. Their arrival wasn't in spades, wasn't abrupt, and didn't influence a demographic shift (nee "white flight"). There was also a 5% drop in "other races" over that timeframe. I wonder what precipitated that? There was only one racial demographic that grew significanly during that timeframe(2000-2010). It works out roughly to -60,000 whites +50,000 blacks +110,000 latino and other races Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Apologies if I offended anyone. I hear other white people using the "C" word in Starbucks, Panera Breads and Coldstone Creameries. I just figured it was a term of endearment that I could say too since I have white friends. Its not that you said it, its HOW you said it. And we can call each other Caucasians because its a part of our culture and how we took ownership of the word. Like, "how are you today my caucasian?" and "birdie putt!?!, my CAUCASIAN!" or "damn caucasian, where did you get that tie?". See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Its not that you said it, its HOW you said it. And we can call each other Caucasians because its a part of our culture and how we took ownership of the word. Like, "how are you today my caucasian?" and "birdie putt!?!, my CAUCASIAN!" or "damn caucasian, where did you get that tie?". See the difference? It demeans us all when people feel the need to use that term. We should all have enough respect for our culture and heritage to not use derogatory terms to refer to ourselves. It may be our word, but we do not need to use it, we're more intelligent than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It demeans us all when people feel the need to use that term. We should all have enough respect for our culture and heritage to not use derogatory terms to refer to ourselves. It may be our word, but we do not need to use it, we're more intelligent than that. Newbies, cut the other newbie some slack. He did admit that whites weren't arriving in black neighborhoods in spades ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Wow. And i thought Allen merely took a jab at the fans of an opposing city. I will have to take a looks, as that obviously isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It demeans us all when people feel the need to use that term. We should all have enough respect for our culture and heritage to not use derogatory terms to refer to ourselves. It may be our word, but we do not need to use it, we're more intelligent than that. Caucasian, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Caucasian, please! No white bread thin lipped honkey trash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 And the reason all of this corruption exists? The inability of the intellectual liberals to admit that they cannot control the beast they continue to feed. because no Republican has ever raised taxes or grown government. puh-leaze. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 and what's wrong with the suburbs, what's right with them? it's a cul-de-sac existence, and created by a modern, gasoline-addicted society that at the same time complains about the long commute and yet continues to make the long commute, and then proceeds to complain about how much it's costing to run the bigass suv everyone seems to prefer to drive. yes, i'm generalizing, but i really don't understand the logic of living out in strip-mall and parking-lot surrounded "neighborhoods." if people want to live in the country, get away from it all, i'm all for it. but to choose the middle ground -- a place where there's no there, there, except for an occassional applebees, best buy and dicks -- well, what's the fun in that. it's the ashley-fi-cation of the furniture world. thick-legged, oversized pieces of furniture based on what you might find on the set of the Tudors or Borgias, and yet having no style or real substance. i'd rather live in a 100-year-old Victorian, than in a 15-year-old "mega-mansion" with a cracking driving and a sinking basement. i'd rather live in a city where i can walk to the local bar, rather than head over to the strip mall wild wings and pretend it's got culture. i find the suburbs and their everything looks like everyplace else dull and bland and perfectly unnatural. i see no fun in going to a strip mall, where there's a michaels next to a dicks next to a starbucks next to a target next to an applebees and trying to figure out whether i'm in amherst, burnaby or dearborn heights. call me the contrarian but what's really out there? jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 and what's wrong with the suburbs, what's right with them? it's a cul-de-sac existence, and created by a modern, gasoline-addicted society that at the same time complains about the long commute and yet continues to make the long commute, and then proceeds to complain about how much it's costing to run the bigass suv everyone seems to prefer to drive. yes, i'm generalizing, but i really don't understand the logic of living out in strip-mall and parking-lot surrounded "neighborhoods." if people want to live in the country, get away from it all, i'm all for it. but to choose the middle ground -- a place where there's no there, there, except for an occassional applebees, best buy and dicks -- well, what's the fun in that. it's the ashley-fi-cation of the furniture world. thick-legged, oversized pieces of furniture based on what you might find on the set of the Tudors or Borgias, and yet having no style or real substance. i'd rather live in a 100-year-old Victorian, than in a 15-year-old "mega-mansion" with a cracking driving and a sinking basement. i'd rather live in a city where i can walk to the local bar, rather than head over to the strip mall wild wings and pretend it's got culture. i find the suburbs and their everything looks like everyplace else dull and bland and perfectly unnatural. i see no fun in going to a strip mall, where there's a michaels next to a dicks next to a starbucks next to a target next to an applebees and trying to figure out whether i'm in amherst, burnaby or dearborn heights. call me the contrarian but what's really out there? jw You live where you please. Saying others who choose not to live there are "hiding there heads in the sand" is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 because no Republican has ever raised taxes or grown government. puh-leaze. jw I'm not a Republican. To me, there is virtually no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 because no Republican has ever raised taxes or grown government. puh-leaze. jw Right over your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 and what's wrong with the suburbs, what's right with them? it's a cul-de-sac existence, and created by a modern, gasoline-addicted society that at the same time complains about the long commute and yet continues to make the long commute, and then proceeds to complain about how much it's costing to run the bigass suv everyone seems to prefer to drive. yes, i'm generalizing, but i really don't understand the logic of living out in strip-mall and parking-lot surrounded "neighborhoods." if people want to live in the country, get away from it all, i'm all for it. but to choose the middle ground -- a place where there's no there, there, except for an occassional applebees, best buy and dicks -- well, what's the fun in that. it's the ashley-fi-cation of the furniture world. thick-legged, oversized pieces of furniture based on what you might find on the set of the Tudors or Borgias, and yet having no style or real substance. If this is what you meant when you said the suburbs are "inhumane," you may want to get out more. Or get a new dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts