Deranged Rhino Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 I stand by my comments. One of the best things we could do as a society to correct the issue of unskilled and unproductive people (regardless of their race) would be to tell people in very strong terms that the government is not going to support them for a lifetime. Put time limits on government benefits and send a message to people what is expected of them in terms of personal responsibility (finish school, work responsibly, don't commit crimes and keep the family unit together). Now, if the government wants to spend some money on training and educating people who are willing to make the effort and be good citizens but need some extra help, I'm all for it. The continuation or the expansion of government aid will never solve the problem because it doesn't change behavior. Conversely it provides an incentive not to change but it does guarantee continued support for politicians that support those programs. There was nothing in the article about depending on government. Not one thing. So essentially you're standing by your point that you didn't understand what the hell you read and instead only want to spout off ago what you want to spout off about. It's cool, it's PPP after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) Your comments show you did not understand what Kareem wrote. Or did not care to. Nowhere did he mention political parties, in fact he went to great lengths to keep the conversation on the topic of how the powerful keep is fighting amongst ourselves ... And then you do exactly what he said you'd do. Reading requires comprehension. And neither of you bothered to comprehend anything in the article. Baloney. He wrote a superficial piece replete with standard villains literally lifted off Hollywood scripts. I was responding to a puff piece that said nothing but make the polite society feel better about themselves. There was nothing in the article about depending on government. Not one thing. It's cool, it's PPP after all. But that’s not the case with the multitude of millionaires and billionaires who lobby to reduce Food Stamps, give no relief to the burden of student debt on our young, and kill extensions of unemployment benefits. ... yet we're the ones who didn't read the article .. Edited August 18, 2014 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Baloney. He wrote a superficial piece replete with standard villains literally lifted off Hollywood scripts. I was responding to a puff piece that said nothing but make the polite society feel better about themselves. But that’s not the case with the multitude of millionaires and billionaires who lobby to reduce Food Stamps, give no relief to the burden of student debt on our young, and kill extensions of unemployment benefits. ... yet we're the ones who didn't read the article .. Yup. Context is king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 See, I was correct, regarding Greggy's projection....................and apparent lack of reading comprehension Context is king, my friend. Understand the context of the example -- it's not aimed at right or left. It's aimed somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Context is king, my friend. Understand the context of the example -- it's not aimed at right or left. It's aimed somewhere else. Where in particular is this one aimed? I’m not saying the protests in Ferguson aren’t justified—they are. In fact, we need more protests across the country. Where’s our Kent State? What will it take to mobilize 4 million students in peaceful protest? Because that’s what it will take to evoke actual change. The middle class has to join the poor and whites have to join African-Americans in mass demonstrations, in ousting corrupt politicians, in boycotting exploitative businesses, in passing legislation that promotes economic equality and opportunity, and in punishing those who gamble with our financial future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) Context is king, my friend. Understand the context of the example -- it's not aimed at right or left. It's aimed somewhere else. But it is about dependence on government, which you stated was not in the article . . GreggyT, on 18 August 2014 - 10:58 AM, said: There was nothing in the article about depending on government. Not one thing . Edited August 18, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) Where in particular is this one aimed? I’m not saying the protests in Ferguson aren’t justified—they are. In fact, we need more protests across the country. Where’s our Kent State? What will it take to mobilize 4 million students in peaceful protest? Because that’s what it will take to evoke actual change. The middle class has to join the poor and whites have to join African-Americans in mass demonstrations, in ousting corrupt politicians, in boycotting exploitative businesses, in passing legislation that promotes economic equality and opportunity, and in punishing those who gamble with our financial future. The fact you can't see is exactly my point. You read that and see it aimed at just the right while what he is actually saying, you know in context of the article, is that we have to move beyond the petty political squabbling and unite if we want real change. That's not aimed at the right, no matter how you twist it. But it is about dependence on government, which you stated was not in the article . . The context is not about that at all. There is a difference between an example and a thesis. But you know that already. Edited August 18, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 The fact you can't see is exactly my point. You read that and see it aimed at just the right while what he is actually saying, you know in context of the article, is that we have to move beyond the petty political squabbling and unite if we want real change. That's not aimed at the right, no matter how you twist it. It's not? Then who are these millionaires that he's referring to that want to take away food stamps? Who are the entrepreneurs? Maybe the reason that I don't see a point is because there was no point in his op-ed, but simply fluff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 enlighten me in this case what do you see as the sx? rioting? and the diagnosis? i'm guessing you don't see it as poverty and class inequality under the law. what then is the dx professor? Under which laws exactly are poverty and class inequality enforced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Greg: I read the article right after it was posted and there hadn't been any views yet. I immediately thought it was like an Obama speech--all hat and no cattle. You my friend will not win this argument defending that kind of an op-ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2014 Author Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) Under which laws exactly are poverty and class inequality enforced? i heard a number the other day that astounded me. every black kid born tomorrow has a 1/3 chance of future incarceration. ya think the number for white babies approaches half that? regardless of the causes, it points to inequality. and i think jabaar makes a valid point. what are the odds of a poor baby's incarceration versus those of a rich one? additionally, the power of lobbying and buying influence that is so pervasive in american gov't is exclusively in the realm of the wealthy with the poor powerless to fight against it. citzens united made matters much worse. usury laws are a great example. who do the current ones benefit? who would benefit from strengthening them? minimum wage - same thing. voter registration laws. redistricting. the list goes on... http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet Edited August 18, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 i heard a number the other day that astounded me. every black kid born tomorrow has a 1/3 chance of future incarceration. ya think the number for white babies approaches half that? regardless of the causes, it points to inequality. Did it occur to you that maybe those black kids are far more likely to commit crimes? It's not inequality when they actually commit the crimes and are incarcerated because they're stupid enough to get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2014 Author Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) Did it occur to you that maybe those black kids are far more likely to commit crimes? It's not inequality when they actually commit the crimes and are incarcerated because they're stupid enough to get caught. most prisoners are in for drugs. read the numbers. there are more whites using drugs than blacks. did it occur to you that law enforcement may be more aggressive in arresting and prosecuting black drug users than whites. Edited August 18, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 most prisoners are in for drugs. read the numbers. there are more whites using drugs than blacks. did it occur to you that law enforcement may be more aggressive in arresting and prosecuting black drug users than whites. The arrests are made for dealing instead of using. The numbers are more swayed on that side. But, yet again, you conflate cause & symptom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2014 Author Share Posted August 18, 2014 The arrests are made for dealing instead of using. The numbers are more swayed on that side. But, yet again, you conflate cause & symptom. really? show me the data. i showed you raw numbers from the naacp. show me yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2014 Author Share Posted August 18, 2014 that's what i thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 really? show me the data. i showed you raw numbers from the naacp. show me yours. NAACP doesn't provide 'raw data' hey provide talking points, as in: Crime/drug arrest rates: African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession These are the raw data sources. that's what i thought. Did you have others do your homework for you in med school too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2014 Author Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) NAACP doesn't provide 'raw data' hey provide talking points, as in: Crime/drug arrest rates: African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession These are the raw data sources. Did you have others do your homework for you in med school too? i do my own homework. one would expect someone that works in finance would have some facility with numbers. how do those numbers advance your argument? 82.8% of arrests were for possession. if everyone of the 16.7% of the drug arrests for dealing was exclusively on blacks, that still doesn't come close to explaining the discrepancy in overall arrests. Ya know what's most disturbing here? that these numbers exists for any reason and that anyone doesn't conclude that there is something fundamentally and intrinsically wrong with a system that results in virtual certain failure for a large percentage of a particular segment of the population. not to acknowledge a problem can only be due to ignorance, willful or not. Edited August 18, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 i do my own homework. one would expect someone that works in finance would have some facility with numbers. how do those numbers advance your argument? 82.8% of arrests were for possession. if everyone of the 16.7% of the drug arrests for dealing was exclusively on blacks, that still doesn't come close to explaining the discrepancy in overall arrests. Ya know what's most disturbing here? that these numbers exists for any reason and that anyone doesn't conclude that there is something fundamentally and intrinsically wrong with a system that results in virtual certain failure for a large percentage of a particular segment of the population. not to acknowledge a problem can only be due to ignorance, willful or not. Do you think that the police just walk up to any black person and search them? No, they search people either involved with another crime or when there is probable cause like a traffic stop for going 15 mph in a 35 mph zone and smoke comes pouring out the window. Do we need to break down all categories of crimes too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Baloney. He wrote a superficial piece replete with standard villains literally lifted off Hollywood scripts. I was responding to a puff piece that said nothing but make the polite society feel better about themselves. But that’s not the case with the multitude of millionaires and billionaires who lobby to reduce Food Stamps, give no relief to the burden of student debt on our young, and kill extensions of unemployment benefits. ... yet we're the ones who didn't read the article .. That's the quote that stood out to me. Are the "millionaires and billionaires" trying to keep the poor down through food stamps and gov't welfare, or trying to take it away? Which is it? I'd be surprised if you could find one lobbyist who's working to get Food Stamps reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts