ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [318] -- The Gender Gap

[ Posted Friday, August 29th, 2014 – 17:25 PDT ]

President Obama gave a press conference recently, and -- since it is still the political Silly Season -- got a lot of media attention. For what he was wearing. No, seriously. Washington was all a-twitter (or even a-Twitter) because Obama wore a suit that was not dark blue or black. While some may smack their heads over the idiocy of what passes as the Washington press corps, the right thing to do is to celebrate how males have finally reached sartorial equality with women, when viewed by political "journalists." This is not a backhanded compliment, I hasten to point out, it is meant as a backhanded insult. Because it is always insulting to a politician to focus on what she (or, now, he) is wearing, instead of reporting on the substance of her words and actions. This has been going on for women in politics for exactly as long as women have been in American politics, right up to Hillary Clinton's pantsuits and Sarah Palin's shopping spree. All women know this -- they will be judged on what they wear, sometimes more than what they say or do. Especially female politicians. President Obama is just getting a tiny taste of what women have had to put up with in the political arena since Day One. So I choose to celebrate this new equality (of the idiocy of the political press), and the closing of this particular part of the gender gap.

Men, of course, have it easier than women when choosing what to don each morning, for two big reasons. One is the fact that they're men, meaning reporters report on what they say and do a lot more than how they look. The second is that there simply aren't that many "acceptable, serious" choices for what men are supposed to wear in the business or political world. Should I wear the dark blue suit, or the black suit with barely-visible pinstripes? That's about the range of choices, really. There are only two acceptable areas for expressing any sort of originality or personality: the tie, and the flag pin. And the flag pin's a fairly recent addition. Women, on the other hand, have no hard-and-fast rules limiting their choices, which serves to make the choice itself much harder (given the wider range of choice offered) -- to say nothing of the standard they'll be held to once they actually do get dressed.

As Silly Season winds to a close, there were a smattering of "Obama's on vacation -- how dare he!?!" stories, as usual. Obama has taken less than a third of the days off that President Bush did (the reigning champion of presidential vacation time), but that certainly doesn't stop pundits from complaining every time Obama picks up a golf club. Bob Cesca did an exemplary job of researching another president's vacationing (while important events were simultaneously happening), complete with some photos of Ronald Reagan not wearing a dark blue suit.

In other "quick looks into the past" news, President Obama announced he would -- only 151 years late -- award the Medal of Honor to a soldier from the Civil War who showed leadership on the battlefields of Gettysburg. Oh, and we hope everyone marked the bicentennial which happened this week, 200 years after Washington D.C. was burned in a key British victory in the War of 1812. This didn't get a lot of attention in the American press (understandably), but will likely be mentioned in passing when we all hear about the bicentennial of the battle for Baltimore two weeks from now -- which gave us our national anthem.

But enough of these detours into history. After all, we've got an election right around the corner! Labor Day is the traditional kickoff to the serious meat of campaign season, and for the wonkier among us there is an interesting article (with interactive map) at the Washington Post site which reports that over a billion dollars will be cumulatively spent this year on ballot propositions alone. This article highlights a few of these races, which could become important as goads for each party to increase turnout among their base. It's wonky, but it's also a fascinating thing to keep your eyes on as we head into campaign season.

Republicans are already campaigning their little hearts out, which always provides some amusing moments. In Pennsylvania, the Republican governor is fighting for his political life, and so he thought he'd do a little outreach to women -- with predictable results. Two years ago, Tom Corbett responded to the forced-ultrasound debate in his state by suggesting women should just "close your eyes." Stay classy, Tom!

Elsewhere, a few Republican groups (including the one Karl Rove set up), realized that they have a serious problem reaching out to women voters, so they commissioned a study on the matter. The results were pretty dismal, as can be expected -- the gender gap is fast becoming a gender chasm. Women are only "barely receptive" to Republican policies, because they view the party as "intolerant," "lacking in compassion," and "stuck in the past." The report's recommendations were pretty timid, too, since it is quite obvious where the problem lies: the extremists in the Republican Party who are not just tone-deaf to women's concerns, but are actively working against women's interests. The only solid policy shift the report suggested was to maybe stop being against equal pay laws and maybe perhaps pay more attention to gender equality in the workplace. Well, that'd be a dandy start, but we're not exactly holding our breath waiting for it to happen, if you know what we mean. Especially after Reince Priebus (a man perfect for his job, since if you remove the vowels in his name you are left with his job description: RNC PR BS) responded to the report's conclusions by channeling his inner Sergeant Schultz in fine "Nothing to see here!" style.

Up in Alaska, the Republican candidate for Senate is now running an ad where he shoots a television, twice. This tactic, we must in all honesty report, was first successfully used by a Democrat, in West Virginia. And the ad is kind of funny (I bet there are lot of voters in Alaska feeling sympathetic to killing their televisions, after boatloads of political ads), so who knows if it'll work for Dan Sullivan or not?

In even-farther-into-the-future news, Hillary Clinton finally got around to addressing the situation in Ferguson, right after everyone stopped paying any attention to it. Maybe winning last week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award had something to do with it? Well, probably not (we're simply not that egotistical in estimating the relative impact of these columns). This week also saw some speculation as to which way Hillary will jump on another contentious issue: marijuana legalization. This speculation was fueled by two news stories about close friends of Clinton, and how they're staking out their positions: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to have it both ways while not supporting medical marijuana in Florida, while Virginia's Governor Terry McAuliffe has spoken out in favor of medical marijuana in his state (even though it's not on the ballot and no bill is on the horizon in Virginia's legislature). File both of these stories under "it's WAY too early for 2016 talk," we suppose.

The biggest bout of rampant speculation in Washington this week centered on what could become known as the "September Surprise" (I wrote about this subject in greater detail earlier this week, for those interested). President Obama set a soft deadline ("the end of the summer") for announcing a new immigration policy. This could shake up the midterm election significantly, even to the point of sweeping every other contentious issue aside. Some Republicans are already threatening to shut down the government again if Obama goes through with his announcement. Current rumors are that maybe Obama is rethinking the timing of such an announcement, and he might just wait until after the midterms. So stay tuned on this one, as it might be a game-changer (if it happens, that is).

OK, that's it for the news roundup this week, but we have to close with a short program note. This column will be on vacation next week. "Friday Talking Points" will return on September 12, hopefully with plenty of juicy things to snark about. We'll see you back here in two weeks!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We're not entirely sure this is even partisan, but we felt that someone deserves some recognition for taking such a bold stand, in any event. In California, unidentified "officials from the state's Department of Managed Health Care" sent out letters to insurance companies stating that abortion is "a basic health care service" and must be covered in all health care plans in the state. From the letter: "[T]he California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally." This could mean a big legal battle in the federal courts (especially after the Hobby Lobby case), but it is refreshing to see a state government making such an unequivocal stand against the new tactic of separating abortion coverage out from health insurance policies. The nameless bureaucrats who made this stand deserve recognition, for taking such a bold position.

Last week we devoted much of this column to supporting the idea of body cameras for all police, and this week we're glad to report that Representative Adam Schiff of California is now gathering signatures on a letter he intends to send to Eric Holder, which states:

The evidence from early adopters is highly promising, and body-worn cameras have garnered support from police chiefs, rank and file officers, community organizations, and civil rights advocates. We believe that a dedicated federal grant program would be a worthy addition to the support the Department of Justice has historically provided to state and local law enforcement agencies.

For showing public support -- and for getting other House members on board -- Adam Schiff deserves at least an Honorable Mention. This is an idea whose time has come. The technology exists. All that is required to implement it universally is political will.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia. Kane is pushing for a Senate vote to approve military strikes in Iraq and Syria. He is doing so even though he's getting a lot of pushback from fellow Democrats, who are horrified at the prospect of senators doing their jobs right before an election.

No matter what you feel about war, about Islamic terrorists, about bombing strikes, or about Syria or Iraq, the fact of the matter is that it's a lot easier to carp about what Obama is (or is not) doing from the sidelines. Republicans revel in the ability to do so, in fact. For people like John McCain (just to pick the most obvious), it's easy to say "what Obama's doing is wrong" without ever having to vote on any alternatives. Remember, Obama didn't start bombing Syria a while back because Congress couldn't agree on doing so. This is actually the way the Constitution is supposed to work. Wars without widespread public support should not be fought. That's the basic idea.

Kaine wants to force the Senate to go on record on what to do in Iraq and Syria. We think this is a good idea. Will this lead to tough votes for some Democrats? Possibly. Will it lead to Republicans having to put up or shut up? Perhaps. But more importantly, it will put everyone on the record, right before they face the voters. If senators are confident that they are truly representing the will of their constituents, then they should have no problem voting.

The naked fear shown by anonymous Democratic Senate aides was revealed in a few quotes: "Asking anybody to take that vote within two months of an election is just stupid. Why would you put people in that position?" Kaine's response to such criticism was impressive:

I don't think anybody should just be in this job for the politics. They should be in the job to do the right thing. The notion of, "Well, we don't want to cast a hard vote before a midterm because it might be unpopular" -- that's the job we volunteered for.

Bravo, Senator Kaine. Even though Harry Reid will likely not allow such a vote, Kaine still wins this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for taking such a principled stand. War is serious business. Politicians should have to show where they stand on such a momentous decision.

[Congratulate Senator Tim Kaine on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

It doesn't really qualify for an award either way, yet, but with all the talk circulating (from Republicans, naturally) of shutting down the government, some Democrats got the very smart idea to launch a pre-emptive strike by putting up a website highlighting previous Republican quotes from last year, just before they shut down the government. This is a good idea, at heart, but the execution so far has been pretty poor. The site is called "Shutdown Broken Promises" but so far is definitely not ready for prime time. We would venture to suggest that a talented high-school student could throw together a better website in a single weekend. Perhaps it's just in "beta" phase, or something? As we said, this could be a really good "opposition research" idea, but the execution so far is pretty disappointing indeed.

But this week's winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is none other than Barack Obama. During his press conference, Obama made what could be called a "Washington gaffe" (usually defined as: "accidentally speaking the truth in politics"), which might in some circumstances have been excusable. However, context in this case doesn't really help Obama, since the truth he uttered was about himself and his administration.

Asked about Syria, Obama gave a thoughtful answer where he spoke of long-term plans and goals for America. But when he was asked a follow-up question about getting congressional approval for bombing Syria, Obama responded:

I have consulted with Congress throughout this process. I am confident that as Commander-in-Chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently. As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress. And I do think that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate.

But I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet. I think what I've seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we're at than we currently are. And I think that's not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military as well. We need to make sure that we've got clear plans, that we're developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard. But there's no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.

Of course, this was shortened in the media to a single soundbite: "We don't have a strategy yet."

This really falls into a sort of "rookie mistake" category -- one that Obama should now be far beyond. Instead of that one sentence, Obama could have used the previous phrasing and given the same full answer with one sentence's change: "Our strategy is not fully developed as of yet." This would have said exactly the same thing, but avoided the "gotcha" quote in the media.

It's not as if Obama is alone on this. Nobody has a strategy for fighting the Islamic State and what to do in Syria right now (except John McCain's "rain bombs down upon them everywhere, right now" strategy -- which is indeed his strategy for lots of different countries in the world and is why he did not get elected president). Congress -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- are terrified of even voting on any such strategy. So, as we said, Obama is not alone in taking some time to develop a solid plan of action.

But none of that will make it beyond the Washington bubble, because of one sentence the president said in a news conference. For making such a verbal stumble, President Obama is regretfully our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Contact President Obama via the White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 318 (8/29/14)

Another mixed bag, here at the end of Silly Season. Next time around (which will be in two weeks, remember), we expect to have a little more focus in these talking points, as the congresscritters all scurry back to the banks of the Potomac. Until then, this is what we've got for this week.

 

1
   We have met the enemy...

This is "shutdown talk," part one.

"I see that some Republicans have reverted to what they do best -- threaten to shut down the federal government in a gigantic tantrum over not getting their own way 100 percent of the time. Republicans will -- just like they did the last couple of times they shut the government down -- attempt to blame this on President Obama somehow, but I find it refreshing that Mitch McConnell knows better. In a recent statement, where he swears he has ruled out another government shutdown -- just like Republican leaders falsely promised last time around -- McConnell made an interesting slip of the tongue. Here is his quote: 'I'm the guy that's gotten us out of the shutdowns that some of our members have pushed us into in the past.' That's right -- some of Mitch McConnell's own Republican members are indeed the ones who are going to threaten disaster for the federal budget once again. I'd like everyone to please remember this when Republicans pathetically trot out their same old 'look what he made me do' excuses, next month."

 

2
   Are you for it or against it?

This one would be handy for just about any Democratic candidate running for Congress, especially as we head into the debate phase of the campaign. To be asked of a Republican opponent, of course.

"The only thing the Republican House has been good for the past two years is driving us over fiscal cliffs and shutting the federal government down in a tantrum any parent of a two-year-old would recognize. That's the only thing they have accomplished -- threatening the entire American economy every so often, for purely political gambits that never work out. In fact, that's what we're hearing from Republicans on Capitol Hill right now: more threats of government shutdowns. So I ask my Republican opponent, in as simple language as I can manage: Are you in favor of shutting the federal government down again for any reason? If you are elected, will you join in these tantrums, or will you govern? A 'yes' or 'no' answer to that would be fine."

 

3
   Time for some moral outrage

This is just downright disgusting. So say so!

"Republican Senate candidate Allen Weh is using images from the video shot of American journalist James Foley being beheaded by Islamic terrorists. Foley's family is begging all of the American public not even to view this video, but Weh feels it is entirely appropriate to force it upon the people of New Mexico. This is so far beyond the pale, I'm almost at a loss for words to express my disgust. I call upon Weh to take down this despicable ad, and if he won't, I call upon the Republican Party to disavow both his campaign and this ad. This is a matter of common decency, folks. The ad should never have been approved in the first place."

 

4
   Throw out the money-launderers!

Here's a nice Biblical reference for Democrats to use.

"House Republicans are trying to pass a bill which makes it easier for money-lenders to operate as money-launderers. Yes, you heard that right: Republicans want to weaken the rule of law so that payday lenders can continue to exploit both the people who borrow from them as well as federal laws against money-laundering. I say we need to throw the money-launderers out! How hard a concept is this for Republicans to understand -- money-laundering is wrong, and we need to make it harder for those attempting to do so, not easier."

 

5
   Docs versus Glocks

This one is fairly easy to state (and more power to the ACLU for supporting the "Docs versus Glocks" legal case).

"Republicans have been pushing laws -- such as the one in Florida -- which silence doctors on the subject of guns in the home. This is simply an outrageous attempt at censoring American citizens who happen to be doctors. Whatever happened to Republicans being against the concept of government getting in between a doctor and a patient, after all? In their overreaching attempt to protect the Second Amendment, these laws absolutely trample upon the First Amendment. Doctors should be free to speak to their patients about anything under the sun, because the Constitution guarantees them this right. This sets a dangerous precedent of one special interest group passing a law banning a conversation they don't think should happen. What would people say if the big tobacco companies passed a law banning doctors from discussing smoking with their patients, after all? If the patients don't want these conversations with doctors, then the doctors will go out of business because their patients will all leave -- that is the free marketplace, folks. Free speech should not be dictated by politicians in this country -- not in the streets, not in political conversations, and definitely not in doctors' offices."

 

6
   Another one bites the dust

More news from the Pennsylvania governor's race.

"I see that Pennsylvania is the latest state to decide that the Medicaid expansion offered by Obamacare is a good thing, after all. The Republican governor probably realized that Republican governors in states which have accepted the Medicaid expansion are doing a lot better in the polls than Republican governors in states which have refused the expansion. This is a polite way of saying this is a desperation move in his effort to get re-elected. But whatever -- it means that hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians will now get health insurance, so it's a good thing even if it was a move born out of political self-preservation. As time goes on, more and more Republican-led states are realizing that not accepting Obamacare's Medicaid extension is both mean-spirited and politically damaging. During this entire time, not a single state has decided to belatedly opt out, while state after state sheepishly decides it is now time to opt in. Hopefully, sooner or later, all Republican governors will come to this simple conclusion as well."

 

7
   How to appeal to women, for dummies

We end with a few stats taken from that "how do we talk to women, guys?" report, just because.

"Karl Rove and a few of his buddies just spent some money on a report to detail why Republicans have such a big 'gender gap' with the voters. The numbers are pretty staggering, folks. When women voters were asked who 'wants to make health care more affordable,' Democrats won by a 39 percent margin. When asked which political party 'looks out for the interests of women,' Democrats won by 40 points. On who 'is tolerant of other people's lifestyles, Democrats had a 39 point lead. When asked such basic questions about which party cared about jobs, and which party is willing to compromise, Democrats again held whopping big advantages of, respectively, 35 points and 26 points. In other words, this ain't rocket science, guys. Women just aren't that into the GOP. Did they really need yet another report to tell them this? The gender gap is fast becoming a gender chasm. But the only way Republicans are ever going to change this is if they follow a simple, two-step plan. Step one: stop supporting moralistic, patronizing, and -- at times -- downright misogynistic policies which make women's lives harder. Step two: start supporting policies which make women's lives easier -- such as equal pay, not inserting politicians between a woman and her doctor, and making it easier for everyone to cast their vote, just for starters. Women will vote for you if you don't attack them and if you support policies they like. It's really not that tough to figure out."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

132 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [318] -- The Gender Gap”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    #8 Bribery is bad.

    You can smell McConnell's desperation. This story is being reported on the local "news". The best part is that the Paulcult is involved. A twofer.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Obama gave a press conference recently, and -- since it is still the political Silly Season -- got a lot of media attention. For what he was wearing.

    I hadn't noticed that. I only noticed where Obama stated we're clueless and have no plan on how to deal with ISIS...

    The moronicy is mind-boggling..

    Some Republicans are already threatening to shut down the government again if Obama goes through with his announcement.

    Yea, just like "some Republicans are already threatening to impeach Obama"...

    It's out of context quotes or quotes from nobodies that Democrats are using to try and scare up some votes because they know they are going to get shellacked in November..

    Let me lay it out clearly, succinctly and concisely...

    Prior to the Mid Terms, there will be no impeachment..

    Prior to the Mid Terms, there will be no government shutdown..

    Democrats are going to have to run on their records, not what the mean nasty terrorist Republicans have done..

    Democrats are going to have to run on their merits and may the gods have mercy on their souls..

    OK, that's it for the news roundup this week, but we have to close with a short program note. This column will be on vacation next week. "Friday Talking Points" will return on September 12, hopefully with plenty of juicy things to snark about. We'll see you back here in two weeks!

    Whhaaaa?????

    "Whoa!!!! WAIT A SECOND!!!!"
    -Ralph Macchio, MY COUSIN VINNY

    Com'on CW!! Ya know my idle fingers are Lucifer's playthings...

    Remember, Obama didn't start bombing Syria a while back because Congress couldn't agree on doing so.

    Come on now, CW. Let's be accurate..

    Obama has NEVER let Congress stand in the way of what Obama want's to do...

    Blaming Congress for the inaction of Obama is ludicrous, given the fact that Obama has acted without Congress time and time and time and time and time (see where I am going with this?? :D ) and time again...

    I am also constrained to point out that Obama didn't bomb Syria because of what Congress did or did not do but rather because his moron of a SecState opened his mouth and confirmed he was an idiot...

    No re-writing recent history now.. :D

    I don't think anybody should just be in this job for the politics. They should be in the job to do the right thing. The notion of, "Well, we don't want to cast a hard vote before a midterm because it might be unpopular" -- that's the job we volunteered for.

    Bravo, Senator Kaine. Even though Harry Reid will likely not allow such a vote, Kaine still wins this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for taking such a principled stand. War is serious business. Politicians should have to show where they stand on such a momentous decision.

    Having said all the afore I completely agree...

    This IS a good idea..

    Didja notice how it's only Democrats who are whining and crying about this??? :D

    But none of that will make it beyond the Washington bubble, because of one sentence the president said in a news conference. For making such a verbal stumble, President Obama is regretfully our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

    here, here!!

    It was a bonehead mistake that a REAL leader would not have made...

    Let's tell our enemies that we are clueless in how to deal with them!

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong about that... :^/

    A wholeheartedly deserved MDDOTW award..

    This one is fairly easy to state (and more power to the ACLU for supporting the "Docs versus Glocks" legal case).

    This is a POLITICAL issue, not a medical issue.

    There is absolutely NO REASON for our doctors to know how many guns we have in our homes..

    NO REASON WHATSOEVER...

    How would you feel if your doctor asked how much marijuana you have in your house?? What political groups you are affiliated with??

    Sorry, CW.. But you are dead wrong on this one. Any legislation that prevents doctors from inquiring on ANYTHING beyond medical is a good idea...

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can smell McConnell's desperation. This story is being reported on the local "news". The best part is that the Paulcult is involved. A twofer.

    The wheel is turning, but I think the hamster is long dead....

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is EXACTLY Obama's problem..

    President Obama needs to focus on how the United States can meet global challenges
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-needs-to-focus-on-how-the-united-states-can-meet-global-challenges/2014/08/29/11ec9e5e-2f90-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html

    Even his OWN people are saying A, B and C....

    And yet, Obama stands up and says, "No, A is not correct.. B is completely inaccurate.. C?? C is wrong.. Period"

    What kind of mess have we gotten ourselves into, electing this clown as our leader??

    Com'on people. Ya'all simply HAVE to be coming around to my way of thinking regarding the competence and leadership of Obama...

    No other conclusion is possible..

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is EXACTLY Obama's problem..

    Oooops. I forgot to lay out the problem.. :D

    Obama governs as he WANTS the world to be, not as it really is..

    His advisers say A and he thinks B...

    "Today Russia has opened a new front in Ukraine. Russia’s force along the border is the largest it has been. The mask is coming off."
    -Samantha Powers, UN Ambassador

    Less than an hour later

    "I consider the actions that we’ve seen in the last week a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now .?.?. it’s not really a shift."
    -President Barack Obama

    "The threat that ISIL poses to the United States is the biggest threat, the most frightening threat I have ever seen."
    -Attorney General Eric Holder

    And then the POTUS has his say...

    "Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region."
    -President Barack Obama

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the glaring discrepancies here..

    For weeks, military and intelligence leaders in the Obama administration have been telling us how much of a threat to the US that ISIS represents..

    Then our POTUS get's up and says, "It ain't no big deal.. Besides, we don't have a plan for dealing with them anyways.. Don't worry.. Be happy..."

    Is this ANY WAY to run a country?? To be a leader??

    Go ahead.. Point out where I am wrong...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since women are the topic de guerre...

    Men, if you ever want to know what a woman's mind feels like, imagine a web browser with 2,857 tabs open. ALL. THE. TIME.

    :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    DEMS HOPE TO MOBILIZE BLACKS FOR MIDTERMS USING FERGUSON OUTRAGE...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/us/getting-ferguson-majority-to-show-its-clout-at-polls.html?_r=0

    WOW....

    Democrats blatantly and unapologetically playing the race card...

    They are, indeed, desperate over the upcoming mid-term elections..

    How utterly pathetic and sad..

    Fanning the flames of racial hatred JUST to win an election...

    How do you like ya'alls Democrats now???

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [2] -

    Free speech works both ways. If a doctor asks you a question you feel is out of line, you are free to not answer, tell the doctor off, and/or get another doctor.

    But FL is not free to revoke the First Amendment for doctors, sorry.

    How would you feel, for instance, if CA passed a law saying "former cops cannot own guns"? Wouldn't you consider that an unconstitutional usurpation of 2nd amendment rights? The Bill of Rights is there for a reason -- to limit what government can and cannot do.

    As for next week, service here may be intermittent. I'll post a Program Note soon with more details, going on a little vacation...

    :-)

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    YoYoTheAssyrian wrote:

    "How do you like ya'alls Democrats now?"

    Just fine, the "race card" only works against racists anyway, and you've told us over and over that republicans aren't racist. So what's to complain about?

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just fine, the "race card" only works against racists anyway, and you've told us over and over that republicans aren't racist. So what's to complain about?

    That's not entirely accurate...

    It's only racists that play the race card...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Free speech works both ways. If a doctor asks you a question you feel is out of line, you are free to not answer, tell the doctor off, and/or get another doctor.

    Unless, of course, you are locked into this particular doctor to to... ahem.. "other factors".. :D

    But FL is not free to revoke the First Amendment for doctors, sorry.

    It has little to do with 1st Amendment issues and more to do with Medical Ethics...

    For example, if a doctor begins to ask sexually explicit questions not related to medical treatment, that would not be covered under 1st Amendment protections but would more likely violate medical ethics as it pertains to sexual harassment..

    Being an MD is not a license to delve into areas that are not related to treatment..

    Could you give me an example where an MD would need to know the number of firearms and types of firearms a person has in order to treat someone medically?

    How would you feel, for instance, if CA passed a law saying "former cops cannot own guns"? Wouldn't you consider that an unconstitutional usurpation of 2nd amendment rights? The Bill of Rights is there for a reason -- to limit what government can and cannot do.

    Not sure how that applies...???

    As for next week, service here may be intermittent. I'll post a Program Note soon with more details, going on a little vacation...

    Ahhhhhh Hokay... I'll try and behave.. :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    and you've told us over and over that republicans aren't racist.

    Actually, I have never said anything of the sort..

    But it IS a documented fact that the Democratic Party beget the KKK and, if Jim Crow HAD been a real person, he would have been a Democrat..

    So...... :D

    But, it wasn't my intent to ignite another race war...

    My only intent was to document the desperation of the Democrat Party as it pertains to the upcoming elections..

    How fanning the flames of racial hatred in incidents that have NOTHING to do with race could benefit them politically..

    One could actually consider that a form of... oh I dunno..

    Terrorism??

    Hostage-Taking??

    Arson???

    :D

    Michale

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale

    Michale

    "Pizza

    Pizza"
    -Little Caesars

    :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, THIS is utterly depressing...

    Democrats are likely to take control of the Senate.
    47% chance as of today.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014

    If Democrats keep the Senate, I am moving to Syria where it's liable to be safer... :^/

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news...

    Vladimir Putin has absorbed the West's 'consequences' and stepped up his aggression
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/11065494/Vladimir-Putin-has-absorbed-the-Wests-consequences-and-stepped-up-his-aggression.html

    Putin has embarrassed Obama once again and showed the world that he (Putin) can do as he pleases and the US is powerless...

    Many thanx to Obama and the Democrats for totally decimating and gutting US exceptionalism...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If the West ... that is to say, EUROPE, doesn't want to do anything to stop Putin, then why should the US?

    I mean, seriously.

    Oh, and as for exceptionalism (funny that word is not recognized in Chris's blog as being spelled correctly, heh) ... exceptional nations don't torture. I'm afraid you just can't have it both ways, my friend ... you must choose.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, Michale ...

    The only one Putin is embarrassing is the leader of Russia himself. He is testing the patience of the rest of the leaders of the civilized world and, in so doing, is showing himself to be a weak leader who only has one tool in his tool box, so to speak.

    Obviously, Putin believes Russia is a weak nation headed up by weak leaders and therefore he needs to engage in power and land grabs to compensate for that. It's actually pretty sad to watch for someone like me who had very high hopes for Russia and its people in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union.

    I might just add that you seem to have a very strange concept of what it means to be a strong leader. But, to each, his own ...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only one Putin is embarrassing is the leader of Russia himself.

    If you mean as an uncivilized psychopath, I would agree...

    But Putin is proving himself to be a very strong leader...

    Obviously, Putin believes Russia is a weak nation headed up by weak leaders and therefore he needs to engage in power and land grabs to compensate for that. It's actually pretty sad to watch for someone like me who had very high hopes for Russia and its people in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Ahhh, the old "Bullies are actually weak and afraid" argument..

    I submit that it doesn't matter one whit whether Putin is weak or strong, afraid or brave..

    It only matters that he is winning..

    But, let's say you are right (as you may well be) and say that Putin IS a cowardly bully..

    How do you stop a bully from victimizing the weak??

    You stand up to him, bloody his nose and make him think twice about being an asshole...

    How do you guarantee that a bully will keep on victimizing the weak??

    Draw lines in the sand, give ultimatums and then do nothing when the lines are crossed...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's only racists that play the race card.

    Racists believe that they are superior to others because of the color of their skin.

    Not sure what card playing has to do with anything. It is an interesting way to spin things though where white people are the victims.

    I mean ... how do white people make it through the day with all the cards being played against them?

    Heheh.

    -David

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Racists believe that they are superior to others because of the color of their skin.

    That's one possible definition...

    Another is that racists base their actions on the color of one's skin..

    For example, if someone thinks a scumbag thug is completely innocent of any wrong doing and that assumption is SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on the color of the person's skin, then that said someone is a racist..

    Dr Martin Luther King said that people should be judged by their actions and their character, NOT the color of their skin...

    In the two relevant incidents under discussion, *I* followed that advice to the letter..

    Did anyone else??

    I'm just sayin'....

    I mean ... how do white people make it through the day with all the cards being played against them?

    yea, it's amazing...

    But it's interesting that you note that it's ONLY white people who get race cards played against them...

    Why can't the race card be played against REAL racist scumbags like Al-TAWANA BRAWLEY-Sharpton et al??

    Because racists won't allow it to be...

    Do you agree that false accusations of racism are worse than racism itself???

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    dsws wrote:

    Instead of that one sentence, Obama could have used the previous phrasing and given the same full answer with one sentence's change: "Our strategy is not fully developed as of yet."

    How about, "A range of strategic options are still on the table."? If he says "Our strategy is not fully developed yet," that sounds as though we're having some difficulty disentangling our heads from our lower digestive tracts. One would hope that we have several strategies fully developed, and the necessary preparations in place so that any of them will be ready to go when events develop to the point where it's optimal to commit.

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do you agree that false accusations of racism are worse than racism itself?

    Racism has impacted millions of black Americans as they are jailed at a rate 6 times higher than that of whites.

    Out of 2.3 million people in jail, 1 million of them are black. And the U.S. has 25% of the world's prisoners with only 5% of the world's population.

    Are we any more violent or criminal than the rest of the world? Or do we simply put more people in jail? Especially more black people.

    This, to me, is an issue.

    This is racism. It is a systemic problem. Our society collectively seems to believe that black people are "animals" and you see this manifested in the way they are treated. Some even gunned down on the streets for jaywalking.

    White people in American don't get shot 7 times in the back for jaywalking.

    This, to me, is a problem. Rush Limbaugh and others like him complaining that some "race card" is played against him is not a problem.

    -David

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you don't think that falsely accusing someone of racism, of diluting the claim of racism so that it means nothing more than calling someone a "jerk" is a problem...

    Just another one of those things we disagree on.. :D

    White people in American don't get shot 7 times in the back for jaywalking.

    But they WOULD get shot 6 times in the front for assaulting a police officer and trying to take the officer's gun..

    The problem here is that no one cares if it's a WHITE scumbag...

    How is this not racism as Dr Martin Luther King would define it??

    I know you won't answer.. You can't answer..

    But that, in and of itself is the answer..

    The only RELEVANT answer...

    It's been well established that we are all bigots...

    Maybe it's true we are all racists. At least how racist has come to be defined... Like being a jerk. Or an asshole...

    Food for thought...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for me, personally??

    Like being a jerk. Or an asshole...

    Yes.. And... Yes... :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The problem here is that no one cares if it's a WHITE scumbag.

    But they do. Here's what happens when white people assault police officers.

    http://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-arrested-after-assaulting-police-officer/article_b3f9c70f-0cf7-5c12-a147-8eaa71ecd19b.html

    They go to jail.

    The problem is that not even white people who "assault" police officers are shot in the back 7 times.

    -David

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the circumstances were similar to the Ferguson shooting, then similar results would have happened..

    Do you have ANY evidence, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, that Michael Brown being black had ANYTHING to do with the incident..

    ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER?

    No, you don't... Because there IS no evidence....

    The problem is that not even white people who "assault" police officers are shot in the back 7 times.

    Can you PLEASE get your facts straight??

    Brown wasn't shot 7 times, he was shot 6 times.. He was not shot in the back, he was shot in the arm (4) and the head (2). And NO shots were fired from Brown's back. They were all fired when Brown was facing the officer..

    If you can't get your facts straight, there is no sense in discussing the issue..

    As far as white people not being shot by cops??

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1435685/justice-for-dillon-taylor-why-has-unarmed-white-man-fatally-shot-by-black-cop-in-utah-been-ignored/

    Are you SURE you want to go with that meme..

    Because I can list THOUSANDS of cases where white people were shot by cops..

    I can list TENS OF THOUSANDS of cases where black people are shot by other black people...

    You (and most everyone else here) are trying to create a racial issue where ABSOLUTELY NO RACISM EXISTS..

    And THAT is *worse* than racism because it cheapens, denigrates and mitigates real racism...

    As I have proven beyond any doubt, Left wingers cry racism at the drop of a dime. The Journo List incident PROVES that Left Wingers scream racism just to silence people.

    We saw that here in Weigantia time and time again..

    There was NO RACISM involved with Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown.

    There was NO RACISM involved when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin..

    If you can prove otherwise, take your best shot..

    But come with facts...

    You won't, though. You can't.. Because there are no facts, no evidence of racism whatsoever..

    They only became racial issues when racists in the black community played the race card...

    This is what the FACTS show...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this..

    Weigantians (sans yours truly) are judging Officer Wilson by the color of his skin. NOT the facts, but the color of his skin...

    He's white, so he MUST be in the wrong..

    Weigantians (sans yours truly) are judging Michael Brown by the color of his skin. NOT the facts, but the color of his skin..

    He's black, so he MUST be innocent..

    According to Dr Martin Luther King, that is the very definition of racism...

    And *I* am the one who is called a racist!!???

    The audacity is mind-blowing...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    He's black, so he MUST be innocent.

    No. He's dead. He can't really be innocent or guilty.

    He's white, so he MUST be in the wrong.

    No. Eyewitness accounts seem pretty damning. As did the response from Ferguson's finest.

    But please, continue with your weird story that somehow you are the victim of the St. Louis shooting.

    -David

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But please, continue with your weird story that somehow you are the victim of the St. Louis shooting.

    Heh.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's black, so he MUST be innocent.

    No. He's dead. He can't really be innocent or guilty.

    Really??

    Jeffery Dahmer is dead..

    Is he innocent??

    No. Eyewitness accounts seem pretty damning. As did the response from Ferguson's finest.

    You have ONE eyewitness account. And that ONE eyewitness is Brown's accomplice in the strong armed robbery where Brown assaulted a small helpless man half his size..

    Funny how you don't seem to care about THAT guy. Probably because he is not black..

    Anyways, on the OTHER side of the evidence scale, you have more than a dozen eyewitnesses, you have physical evidence (fingerprints and such) and you have forensic evidence AND you have plain old common sense...

    But you ignore ALL of that and concentrate on the one eyewitness who tells the fairy tale that you WANT to believe..

    And all because of the color of Michael Brown's skin...

    I'll ask you the same question I asked LD who never could answer.

    Would you give a rat's ass about Michael Brown if he were white??

    I know you won't answer either.

    You CAN'T answer.. Because your only honest answer would totally decimate your position..

    But please, continue with your weird story that somehow you are the victim of the St. Louis shooting.

    Could you elaborate?? Where did I claim I was a victim of the Ferguson shooting???

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any evidence that the Ferguson or Sanford shootings had anything to do with race??

    {{chiirrrrrrpppppp}} {{chiiirrrrrrrpppppp}}

  32. [32] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Here's what happens when white people assault police officers."

    C'mon now David. That white guy wasn't doing any serious crime like jaywalking while black. Apples and oranges.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    C'mon now David. That white guy wasn't doing any serious crime like jaywalking while black. Apples and oranges.

    What *IS* it with you people that you just can't help but interject skin color into incidents that have NOTHING to do with skin color??

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
    -Dr Martin Luther King JR

    Doesn't that MEAN anything at all to you people??

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Would you give a rat's ass about Michael Brown if he were white?

    I would, but not as a social issue. It would be a crime. Albeit a particularly violent one which might generate more than the usual sympathy.

    So why would I (or anyone else for that matter) care so much about the Michael Brown killing?

    Because it's symbolic of the statistics I cited earlier.

    Because the justice system for white people is not the same as the justice system for black people.

    To repeat, black people are jailed at a rate 6 times higher than that of whites.

    Out of 2.3 million people in jail, 1 million of them are black. And the U.S. has 25% of the world's prisoners with only 5% of the world's population.

    Why are we putting so many people in jail, especially black people?

    Especially when crime is committed pretty equally by race.

    Why do we have two justice systems, one for whites and one for blacks?

    -David

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    C'mon now David. That white guy wasn't doing any serious crime like jaywalking while black. Apples and oranges.

    I know, I know. Right?

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because it's symbolic of the statistics I cited earlier.

    Do those statistics you quote take into account the people who are actually guilty??

    This debate isn't about statistics.. It's about whether or not you have any evidence that race had anything to do with the Ferguson and Sanford shootings..

    Do you??

    To repeat, black people are jailed at a rate 6 times higher than that of whites.

    What about their guilt??

    Why is the color of their skin the only relevance in your book???

    Why are we putting so many people in jail, especially black people?

    Are black people guilty???

    What this all boils down to is simple..

    You are judging people by the color of their skin..

    I am judging people by their actions..

    You may be right with your statistics, but that is not what I am arguing..

    I am arguing that the Ferguson shooting and the Sanford shooting has absolutely NOTHING to do with race..

    If you have any evidence that shows my position is false, aire it..

    But you don't..

    All you have is the hysterical "OH MY GODS, THINK OF THE BLACK PEOPLE" non-argument..

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would, but not as a social issue. It would be a crime. Albeit a particularly violent one which might generate more than the usual sympathy.

    Where is your credible evidence that it would be a crime??

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This debate isn't about statistics.

    Perhaps not to you. But to me they indicate a systemic problem.

    People are people and commit crimes at similar statistical levels.

    If they are treated at disproportionately different levels, that says there is bias in the system.

    Statistical evidence indicates a racist bias in our justice system.

    I am arguing that the Ferguson shooting and the Sanford shooting has absolutely NOTHING to do with race.

    I believe we are talking about 2 entirely different things.

    If you have any evidence that shows my position is false, aire it.

    I have no interest in arguing with you one way or another about your position.

    Why? Because your position has nothing at all to do with the systemic problems within our justice system.

    -David

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps not to you. But to me they indicate a systemic problem.

    OK, let's examine that..

    You are saying that racism is a systemic problem..

    From your lack of response regarding evidence of racism in the Ferguson and Sanford shootings, I can only conclude that you concur that racism had nothing to do with Ferguson and Sanford..

    Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that your "systemic problem" has nothing to do with Ferguson or Sanford..

    I believe we are talking about 2 entirely different things.

    yes, we are..

    if you want to concede that racism had nothing to do with Ferguson and Sanford, I'll be happy to move on to your alleged "systemic problem"...

    Why? Because your position has nothing at all to do with the systemic problems within our justice system.

    Hallelujah!!!! :D

    Common ground..

    So, we agree that "my issue" (Sanford and Ferguson) have "nothing at all to do with" YOUR issue of the alleged systemic problem of racism...

    "Detente.. It's a wonderful thing."
    -Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, that we agree on Ferguson & Sanford had absolutely NOTHING to do with racism, let's look at your alleged "systemic" racism...

    Is there ANY other factor that could explain the high crime rate amongst black people??

    For example, 80% of black children are born out of wedlock with no family structure whatsoever??

    Isn't it possible that THAT could that be a factor in the high crime rate amongst black people??

    That's kind of my point about the whole issue..

    You WANT it to be about the color of the skin, in violation of MLK's quote..

    Therefore you ignore OTHER possible contributing factors..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that your "systemic problem" has nothing to do with Ferguson or Sanford.

    Unfortunately, systemic problems manifest themselves in very real ways.

    What I will agree is that it is very difficult to prove an individual instance of racism.

    We know something is rotten because we see it in the statistics. So we know individual cases happen. But to prove it in an individual instance typically requires a confession from the aggressor about his or her motive.

    A more logical conclusion would be: "It's likely that the Ferguson shooting is an example of a systemic problem."

    I'll be happy to move on to your alleged "systemic problem.

    Excellent ... these issues need to be addressed at a much higher level than individual instances.

    -David

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    A more logical conclusion would be: "It's likely that the Ferguson shooting is an example of a systemic problem."

    That's a political statement, not a scientific one..

    If there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a racial component in the Ferguson shooting, you can't claim ANY connection between it and the systemic problem, likely or otherwise...

    In other words, you can't say they are connected just because you WANT them to be connected.

    You have to have evidence..

    And there is none..

    Unless you follow YoYo's line of reasoning that a black person is involved so it HAS to be racism..

    You, being the logical person I know you to be, would not subscribe to such trash...

    :D

    Excellent ... these issues need to be addressed at a much higher level than individual instances.

    OK, then lets start by addressing the possibility of OTHER factors in the statistics you subscribe to..

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I will agree is that it is very difficult to prove an individual instance of racism.

    Apparently, it's even MORE difficult to prove institutionalized racism, because there is no evidence of that in the here and now either..

    Institutionalized racism is dead. It died the day this country elected a black president..

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's a political statement, not a scientific one.

    It's a quite logical statement. If institutionalized racism exists, there must be individual cases of it.

    And when you see such excessive violence for something like jaywalking. Or even for the "assault" described by the officer. You have to admit, it's not standard police procedure.

    Institutionalized racism is dead. It died the day this country elected a black president.

    It was a great individual accomplishment but I don't see how this has anything to do with the systemic problem in our justice system. The statistics didn't change a bit.

    -David

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a quite logical statement. If institutionalized racism exists, there must be individual cases of it.

    Key word there being "IF"...

    If you can't provide evidence of existence, then how can I entertain the possibility??

    It was a great individual accomplishment but I don't see how this has anything to do with the systemic problem in our justice system. The statistics didn't change a bit.

    That's because you refuse to consider any other factors besides racism..

    Once again, it's ALL about the color of the skin..

    They're black, so it MUST be racism... It "can't" be anything BUT racism..

    That is where your error is..

    GIGO

    Garbage in, Garbage out.

    You start with a conclusion and then find the evidence to support the conclusion and ignore the evidence that disproves the conclusion..

    It's the Demcorat way... :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you can't provide evidence of existence, then how can I entertain the possibility??

    It's like Bigfoot.. It's fun to theorize about the existence of the Sasquatch...

    But if there isn't any real, concrete, reliable evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot, then it's nothing more than wishful thinking..

    So it is with racism amongst Left Wingers...

    I mean, imagine the outcry if all the obamaphones and food stamps and affirmative action and all the other free stuff were to simply cease...

    What a world it would be if the color of one's skin is completely and utterly irrelevant, eh???

    But we're never going to get there if Left Wingers don't quit making a racial incident where absolutely no racism exists..

    We're never going to get there is scumbag racists like Al -Tawana Brawley- Sharpton and Ben -Ambulance Chaser- Crump are allowed to continue to fan the flames of racial hatred for fun and profit..

    Surely you can see that the liks of Sharpton and Crump are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution, eh???

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Surely you can see that the liks of Sharpton and Crump are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution, eh???

    Would you also agree that the black community and the Left Wingers in general do themselves damage their own cause greatly by screaming "RACISM!!!" where no racism exists??

    Such as we saw in the Ferguson and Sanford shootings....

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I will agree is that it is very difficult to prove an individual instance of racism.

    Maybe there is a reason for that...

    Maybe, it's because the vast majority of the cases that wingers THINK is racism, really isn't..

    Hmmmmm????

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Would you also agree that the white community and the Right Wingers in general do themselves damage their own cause greatly by screaming "NO RACISM!!!" where racism exists??

    Such as we saw in the Ferguson and Sanford shootings....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you also agree that the white community and the Right Wingers in general do themselves damage their own cause greatly by screaming "NO RACISM!!!" where racism exists??

    I would agree with that, absolutely..

    Now, provide an example of that with the facts to back it up..

    Such as we saw in the Ferguson and Sanford shootings....

    And where are your facts to back it up??

    {{chirrrrpppp}} {{{chiiirrrrrpppp}}}

    Non-existent...

    Cricket city......

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And where are your facts to back it up??

    94% white police force in a 2/3 black community. Protests and riots (the shooting was the spark not the reason). Tales of police abuse of black suspects (assault on a police officer because he dared to bleed on the officers uniforms after being beaten). Just about every black person interviewed mentions the problems. Last year, black residents accounted for 86% of the vehicle stops made by Ferguson police and nearly 93% of the arrests made from those stops, according to the state attorney general. FBI statistics show that 85% of the people arrested by Ferguson police are black, and that 92% of people arrested specifically for disorderly conduct are black.

    How much more do you need? Sounds pretty institutional to me...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa

    You claimed that the Sanford and Ferguson shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown respectively, that racism was a factor..

    Do you have ANY credible and substantiated evidence to support your claim??

    {{cchhhiiiiirrrrrrppppppp}} {{chirrrrrppppppp}}

    A simple no will suffice....

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa

    Changing the subject and ignoring the facts.

    Typical. Yawn...

    akadjian spelled it out quite well. It's difficult to prove individual cases of racism. Can I prove that Zimmerman would have done the exact same thing if a white kid was walking through the complex at night or the ferguson cop would hassle a white kid jayhwalking in the exact same way? Unlikely unless they were seen acting or not acting in the same situation. But it's also difficult to disprove them as well. Institutional racism on the other hand is much easier and pretty overwhelming here and the overzealous use of force in both cases damming. I can't prove 100% that racism was a cause in either incident. But neither can you prove the opposite by the same standards.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Changing the subject and ignoring the facts.

    The subject was the Sanford and Ferguson shootings..

    And you HAVE no facts for me to ignore..

    . I can't prove 100% that racism was a cause in either incident. But neither can you prove the opposite by the same standards.

    I can unequivocally state with complete and utter certainty that there is absolutely NO credible or substantiated evidence that would indicate that racism had ANYTHING to do with the Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin shooting..

    THAT is fact...

    Now, you can argue and debate what the definition of "is" is until the cows come home..

    But that won't change the fact that you have absolutely NO evidence to support your claim..

    And I have PLENTY of evidence to support my claims...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    akadjian spelled it out quite well. It's difficult to prove individual cases of racism.

    Especially where there IS no racism..

    Such as the Sanford and Ferguson shootings..

    But neither can you prove the opposite by the same standards.

    You can't prove a negative..

    The only thing you can do is to prove that racism WAS the factor in the shootings..

    But, of course, to do that, to prove that racism was a factor, you would have to have evidence..

    But you have no evidence..

    And, in light of the FACT that there is NO EVIDENCE to support the claim of racism, racism was not a factor..

    See how easy that is?? :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's because you refuse to consider any other factors besides racism.

    Such as ... ?

    The one other big factor tends to be socioeconomic. That is, poor people tend to commit more crimes and statistically black people tend to be worse off (which in and of itself is a whole different problem).

    Studies typically account for the socioeconomic factors.

    What factors are you think of?

    -David

  57. [57] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Whups ... err "thinking" ... my bad.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    akadjian spelled it out quite well. It's difficult to prove individual cases of racism.

    Especially where there IS no racism..

    Honestly...

    If you are going to accuse someone of being a racist, doesn't it seem reasonable that you be ABSOLUTELY sure of the accusation and have a plethora of facts to back it up??

    Doesn't THAT make more sense than just tossing out the accusation on a whim with absolutely no thought whatsoever???

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    akadjian spelled it out quite well. It's difficult to prove individual cases of racism.

    Especially where there IS no racism..

    Honestly...

    If you are going to accuse someone of being a racist, doesn't it seem reasonable that you be ABSOLUTELY sure of the accusation and have a plethora of facts to back it up??

    Doesn't THAT make more sense than just tossing out the accusation on a whim with absolutely no thought whatsoever???

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face it, guys...

    Ya'all are on the losing side of this issue..

    I mean, look at it..

    Ya'all are fighting for the right to accuse people of being racists without ANY facts or evidence to back up such an accusation..

    Do you REALLY want to go on record defending such a right??

    "You have no right to dictate to our Federation how to handle their interstellar relations! We have the right..."
    "...to wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you're defending?"

    -Star Trek TOS, ERRAND OF MERCY

    Is THAT the right ya'all want to defend??

    The right to accuse anyone of racism without ANY facts or evidence to support such an accusation??

    Is that what ya'all are defending??

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The right to accuse anyone of racism without ANY facts or evidence to support such an accusation?

    You sure do pull some strange things from what other people say, Michale.

    I believe in equality. I fight for equality.

    And I know racism exists because I struggle with it having come from a family that also struggles. My mom would lock the car doors in broad daylight in the mall parking lot if a black person walked by. Both of my grandfathers spoke of "those people" ruining their small town when they moved in. My father never took us to New York City even though we grew up about 2 hours away because he thought the entire city was nothing but black crime.

    When we moved out of NY, we moved to a white suburb of Cincinnati for "good schools". Good schools was code for "white" schools.

    I've lived now in the city in a much more racially diverse neighborhood now for over 20 years. I've never experienced any problems or issues. The crime rate is likely higher in the city but that's more because there are pockets of poorer neighborhoods. As areas in the suburbs have fallen from the middle class, their crimes rates have increased.

    Just the other night though, after our Labor Day fireworks, an incident happened that reminded me of my struggle. I was biking home from downtown following one of the city bike paths. Halfway home there's a stretch where I needed to cut over off the bike path for a quarter mile.

    This part is through a bit of a rundown neighborhood and it was midnight. People had been drinking for hours at Riverfest and were on their way home. These were the only people on the road. I stopped at a red light and a beat up Honda Civic pulled up next to me.

    I looked over and there were two black men in their twenties in the car. The one in the passenger seat was rolling down the window. He leaned out and I tensed, expecting some kind of trouble.

    "You need to get a mutha-fuckin' light," he said, "We almost ran you over."

    For a second I wasn't quite sure what to say. Then I realized he was right. It probably would be hard to see me without a bike light. I did need a motherf*cking bike light.

    "I'm sorry," I said. "Thank you for not running me over."

    He looked a little surprised. Almost as if he were expecting a fight. At the very least, he wasn't expecting an apology.

    Not sure himself what to say, he rolled the window up and they drove off.

    The incident reminded me though that I struggle to overcome perceptions I've learned growing up. I was successful in this instance.

    My experience has been that when you respect people, you typically gain respect in return. So that's how I try to live my life.

    I believe in equality. At heart, we're all pretty much the same. We all want basically the same things.

    This belief in equality is a relatively new thing. Our founders said it, but when they said "All men are created equal" they really meant white men. Not women. Not black people. And certainly not the people who'd been living in this country before they arrived. At they time they said it, it meant about 5% of the country.

    Still, by saying it, and by putting it into our founding documents they set in motion fights to make it real. Women have gained the right to vote. African-Americans have gained the right to vote. Etc, etc.

    It was an incredibly novel idea at the time. All men are equal and should govern themselves. The king had to have been pissed. It's an idea I still believe in and feel worth fighting for. We are equal and should govern ourselves.

    Now when I say "equality" of course I don't mean that everyone is going to be exactly equal. But the gaps should be much closer than they are. An average black family has a net worth of about $6,000. The average white family $110,000. Whites, on average, own more than 18 times as much as blacks. The average during apartheid in South Africa was 15 times.

    There are still some very real economic and social divides and I know we can do better.

    That's what I fight for. Whether you're with me or not I'll fight. It's why I often think we'd be better off simply picking people from the phone book to represent us.

    And I hope you understand that this doesn't mean anti-white. Equality is not a zero sum game.

    -David

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I hope you understand that this doesn't mean anti-white. Equality is not a zero sum game.

    I completely agree..

    Equality IS the goal..

    Ignoring the color of the skin and looking at the facts IS equality..

    Sadly virtually every Weigantian failed the EQUALITY test in Ferguson and in Sanford..

    Because, for them, in Ferguson and in Sanford, equality took a back seat to skin color.

    That's been my point this entire time..

    Officer Darren Wilson was white, so he was in the wrong. Michael Brown was black, so he was in the right..

    George Zimmerman was white (even though he really wasn't) so he was in the wrong. Trayvon Martin was black, so he was in the right..

    Where's the equality???

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all say that equality is the issue here...

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1435685/justice-for-dillon-taylor-why-has-unarmed-white-man-fatally-shot-by-black-cop-in-utah-been-ignored/

    Where's the equality??

    From where I sit, ya'alls idea of "equality" seems to be just about skin color... :^/

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    I honestly don't think ya'all comprehend the illogic of ya'alls position..

    It is agreed that the Sanford shooting and the Ferguson shooting had absolutely NOTHING to do with race..

    Yet, ya'all want to use those incidents to highlight the alleged inequality based on race...

    So, please explain how 2 incidents that have NOTHING to do with race, can prompt a discussion on alleged race-base inequality??

    What is more likely is that wingers want to use ANY excuse to highlight alleged race-based inequality to further a political agenda regardless of the fact that race had nothing to do with the incidents cited..

    Where is the logic in that??

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay.. I am a fair guy..

    If you want to discuss the problems that plague the black community here in the United States, I am all for that..

    I mean, after all, we can't SOLVE the problems unless we identify the problems, right??

    So, let's discuss the 80% out of wedlock births in the black community.

    Let's discuss the rampant drug use amongst the black community.

    Let's discuss the black on black murder and assault rates that are an epidemic in the black community..

    Whaa??

    You don't want to discuss these things?? These are real and documented problems within the black community. Problems that the black community can address right now without ANY input or action from the mean, nasty, racist white people...

    So, why not address THOSE problems??

    Because I am willing to bet the farm that if the black community addresses THOSE problems, the alleged institutionalized racism that ya'all *think* is the problem (but cannot show ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of) will magically disappear...

    Dr Benjamin Carson....

    Bill Cosby....

    Herman King....

    Dr Martin Luther King....

    Clarence Thomas...

    Condeleeza Rice...

    General Colin Powell...

    Do you know what all these people have in common??

    They are successful... And they ignored Left Wingers who told them that white people are holding them back...

    So, yea.. I am all for talking about the problems that plague the black community..

    But, we are going to talk about ALL the problems.. Not just the alleged problems that suit a particular political agenda...

    You game???

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If only someone would post Bill O'Reilley's racist talking points, maybe these liberal loons here would learn something. It wouldn't take much effort. Even a bot could do it.

    If you quote me, you're lying.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see the point, David??

    Wingers don't want to talk about ANYTHING if it means taking personal responsibility..

    Don't take my word for it.

    Listen to Bill Cosby...

    Listen to Clarence Thomas...

    Listen to Juan Williams..

    JFC,

    For the record, those were Juan William's talking points, not Bill O'reilly's

    Not that you have ever let FACTS get in the way of your hysterical spewings...

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that there are FACTS to support Mr Williams' talking points..

    When ya'all are asked to provide FACTS to support YA'ALL's talking points??

    {{chiiirrrrrrpppppp}} {{{chiiiirrrrrrrppppp}}}

    Nuttin' but crickets...

    Funny how that is, iddn't it?? :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I mean, after all, we can't SOLVE the problems unless we identify the problems, right?

    Well, now we're getting somewhere.

    Though the fact that there are successful black people doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Just like the fact that there are successful white doesn't mean the middle class isn't being gutted.

    You're also going to have to show me an example of a "left winger" telling anyone that white people are holding them back for it to be true. C'mon, Michale. You're better than this!

    No one is saying personal responsibility is bad. Hell, I'm a big believer. No one ever succeed without personal responsibility. I encourage it. The problem is that lots of people who are very responsible don't succeed. And it's getting worse. This is why we need more opportunity.

    It's also why statistics and looking at the larger picture is so important.

    If you look at birthrates overall around the world over the past 100 years, one of the things that stands out is the birthrate of developing countries vs. developed countries.

    https://online.science.psu.edu/sites/default/files/biol011/Fig%201-11%20Distribution%20of%20World%20Population%20Growth.jpg

    The birthrate of developed countries is relatively flat while the birthrate of developing countries is much higher.

    Basically, what this means is that poor people have more children. In wedlock or out of wedlock. The reasons for this tend to be economic. When you are economically successful, it's not as important that you have children. You can depend on yourself in the future.

    Where is all this going?

    Well, the issues you're talking about are economic issues. People have less children out of wedlock when they are better off. There is less crime when people have good-paying jobs.

    These aren't black issues though they may seem like black issues because a greater percentage of black people in our country are poor.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. himself came to this conclusion shortly before he was shot. He realized that the best way to help black people was if there were less poor people.

    Unfortunately, our country is headed in the wrong direction. We're creating more poor people.

    And unfortunately, we'll see these problems you talk about affect poor whites. The recent heroin, meth, and prescription drug epidemic, for example, is mostly affecting poor white people.

    *sigh*

    If we want to fix these things, the way to do it is that we need to all share in the gains of our great country. We need to recognize not just the people at the top, but everyone who works.

    This is why our country seemed much better off during the '50s and '60s when more people were being paid better.

    If we really want to fix things, we need an economic system that doesn't work for just the couple hundred billionaires. Because that's how our system works now. These people are the new kings and queens.

    Anyways, good discussion. Much of this is why I'm so interested in economics. Because if you really want to talk about everything, that's where the action is.

    -David

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're also going to have to show me an example of a "left winger" telling anyone that white people are holding them back for it to be true. C'mon, Michale. You're better than this!

    Apparently, you haven't read any of LD's posts and comments.. :D

    Basically, what this means is that poor people have more children. In wedlock or out of wedlock. The reasons for this tend to be economic. When you are economically successful, it's not as important that you have children. You can depend on yourself in the future.

    That makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever..

    What you are saying is that people who CAN'T AFFORD to have children are having MORE children because they CAN'T AFFORD children..

    If there is any logic to that claim, I would certainly like to hear it...

    Unfortunately, our country is headed in the wrong direction. We're creating more poor people.

    Agreed...

    So, it seems to me that the people who are having more children without a firm family structure should exhibit some self control and responsibility in NOT having children..

    If we want to fix these things, the way to do it is that we need to all share in the gains of our great country. We need to recognize not just the people at the top, but everyone who works.

    or, better yet, let the people who WANT more work harder to get it, rather than just give everyone a handout...

    That's why the Democrat Party has been so successful as of late..

    They are the Free Ride Party, the Free Stuff Party...

    Why work hard when Democrats will ensure that you get your fair share without even having to work for it!???

    It used to be people had to WORK to get a piece of the American dream..

    Now, Democrats are handing it out on a silver platter without any effort necessary..

    The black community has simply traded one form of slavery and servitude for another...

    It's an irony extremus that it's the Democratic Party who is responsible for both...

    Anyways, good discussion. Much of this is why I'm so interested in economics. Because if you really want to talk about everything, that's where the action is.

    You know that my view of economics is extremely simple, governed by common sense...

    If you want to share in the dream then work for it..

    Don't expect it to be handed to you w/o any effort.

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Though the fact that there are successful black people doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

    True, but the fact that there are successful black people PROVES that the problems that DO exist (if any) are not insurmountable..

    IF ONE EXPENDS THE EFFORT

    Sure, there is racism in the world. I am sure that Rice and King and Thomas and Cosby and Williams faced MUCH MORE racism in their day than faces black people today..

    And yet.... They flourished.. They are the pinnacle of success in their respective fields...

    The didn't ask for a handout.. They didn't demand their Obamaphones and their EBTs and their mortgages paid...

    They succeeded DESPITE the racism..

    The PROVED it can be done...

    So, why is it that THEY can make it, yet no other black person can???

    THAT is the question that you must satisfactorily answer, if you want to sell the myth that is Institutionalized Racism...

    Where are the facts??

    Not the "code words", not the phantom spittings or the non-existent slurs or any of that..

    COLD... HARD... FACTS....

    Because without facts, you have nothing but a theory... An unsupported and non-proven theory...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If there is any logic to that claim, I would certainly like to hear it.

    I know, right?

    It sounds wrong at first. In agrarian countries, the logic was that children would help you on the farm.

    You'd think this would change with the poor in developed countries. But it doesn't. The people having kids are the poor. People like Mike Judge have even joked about this in movies like "Idiocracy". Have you ever watched the first 10 minutes of this movie? It's hilarious. It also points at some of the possible reasons why. The biggest one I've heard has to do with education. Educated people who understand economics understand how many children they can afford.

    So, it seems to me that the people who are having more children without a firm family structure should exhibit some self control and responsibility in NOT having children.

    People will but only at a certain point of education and economic understanding.

    So, why is it that THEY can make it, yet no other black person can?

    Why aren't all white people as successful as Steve Jobs?

    The reason is the same.

    WANT more work harder to get it, rather than just give everyone a handout.

    Which is great if there are jobs. The jobs simply don't exist though. And more and more they're being automated or moved overseas.

    In my opinion, there's plenty of work that needs to be done in our country. Roads and bridges that need repairing. New Internet infrastructure. Upgrading our power grid.

    Hell, look around. Our country is falling apart. Why not pay people to fix it rather than putting people in jail?

    -David

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why aren't all white people as successful as Steve Jobs?

    The reason is the same.

    Well, then we have nothing to disagree about..

    Because, as you say, black people/white people, the reasons are the same.. :D

    In my opinion, there's plenty of work that needs to be done in our country. Roads and bridges that need repairing. New Internet infrastructure. Upgrading our power grid.

    Hell, look around. Our country is falling apart. Why not pay people to fix it rather than putting people in jail?

    Maybe because those people are guilty of crimes??

    But other than that, I completely agree with you...

    There are no jobs..

    Which makes bringing in 5-8 million NEW workers to compete for those jobs makes absolutely NO logical sense...

    It's amazing how it all ties together.. :D

    Being a sarcastic ass aside, I see what you are saying..

    And the solution would be chuck the political Partys and their self-serving agendas...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because, as you say, black people/white people, the reasons are the same.

    Yep. Economics can explain many things. Except why more black people are poor.

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, what'd you think of Pulp Fiction?

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep. Economics can explain many things. Except why more black people are poor.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/juan-williams-ferguson-and-americas-racial-fears-1408490310

    Read any opinion/commentary by Mr Bill Cosby...

    That might have something to do with it, eh??

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:
  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, what'd you think of Pulp Fiction?

    Had to postpone it. Son came home from Alaska for a week or so....

    Probably get to it tonight or Monday...

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep. Economics can explain many things. Except why more black people are poor.

    How about blaming the actors and musicians who glorify and romanticize thuggery and gangsta behavior??

    Why not hold THEM culpable??

    How about blaming the racist activists who fan the flames of racial hatred for fun and profit, where NO RACISM exists??

    Why not hold THEM responsible...

    The problem with the Left's approach to helping the black community is that the Left only concentrates on a small percentage of the problem and ignore the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, the black community is it's own worst enemy...

    Sanford & Ferguson proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And the problem with the right's approach is that they're only interested in fighting anyone interested in solving the problem.

    Why?

    Good question. Maybe because it distracts from the billionaires looting our country.

    It's a shame they don't yell "Personal responsibility!" every time some billionaire wants another billion.

    Anyways ... it's been fun, Michale. Afraid we're at the point of repetitiveness though.

    -David

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the problem with the right's approach is that they're only interested in fighting anyone interested in solving the problem.

    For example....????

    Good question. Maybe because it distracts from the billionaires looting our country.

    Tell ya what... when you start complaining about the LEFT Winger billionaires that are looting the country, we can discuss that...

    Fair??? :D

    Anyways ... it's been fun, Michale. Afraid we're at the point of repetitiveness though.

    yep.. It always comes back to the idea that LEFT = GOOD RIGHT = EVIL..

    Which I have proven false...

    :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

    Why is this happening if it's the RIGHT that is to blame for all the country's ills???

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good question. Maybe because it distracts from the billionaires looting our country.

    Tell ya what... when you start complaining about the LEFT Winger billionaires that are looting the country, we can discuss that...

    Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/

    Do you see the problem??

    You complain about billionaires and the 1% and you fault Republicans for that..

    But, as we see, it's Obama and the Democrats who are at fault..

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good question. Maybe because it distracts from the billionaires looting our country.

    Tell ya what... when you start complaining about the LEFT Winger billionaires that are looting the country, we can discuss that...

    Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise

    Do you see the problem??

    You complain about billionaires and the 1% and you fault Republicans for that..

    But the evidence clearly shows that it's Obama and the Democrats who are a billionaires best friends...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good question. Maybe because it distracts from the billionaires looting our country.

    Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise

    Do you see the problem??

    You complain about billionaires and the 1% and you fault Republicans for that..

    But the evidence clearly shows that it's Obama and the Democrats who are a billionaires best friends...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooo David... :D

    Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/

    Looks like it's Obama and the Democrats who are billionaires best friends.. :D

    Somewhat of a discrepancy between your position and the facts, eh? :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    John From Censornati wrote:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/

    And yet, under Obama and the Democrats, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer....

    You seem to be fact-challenged...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:
  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, under Obama and the Democrats, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer....

    You seem to be fact-challenged...

    Under Obama, The Rich Get Richer
    http://tinyurl.com/kz7wfnn

    Nuttin but facts...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    @John from Censornati -

    Mr. Balko deserves a Pulitzer for that article. Some of the best reporting I've seen.

    -David

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news..

    I was reading how Fast Food workers are, once again, whining that they can't make executive wages flipping burgers...

    Well, fine...

    http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8

    Fire them all and replace them with robots..

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Fire them all and replace them with robots.

    I thought you supported families, Michale.

    If you support families, shouldn't people be able to earn a living wage?

    Weren't our families a lot better off when people were getting paid better?

    Just sayin' ...

    -David

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Weren't our families a lot better off when people were getting paid better?

    People got paid better for doing the jobs that warranted better pay...

    Min wage jobs are not designed to be careers.. They are designed to be stepping stones to better pay...

    But people are lazy and want better pay without doing more work...

    If you want better pay, then work harder, go to school, learn new skills and THEN get the better pay...

    Anything else simply breeds selfish lusers who want everything handed to them on a silver platter..

    AKA Democrats.. :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Min wage jobs are not designed to be careers.

    Except they are for many people.

    Because there aren't enough well paying jobs for everyone.

    It's unfortunate, but this is the reality. It may not have been the reality you & I faced, but it is the reality of today.

    This is why we should be doing two things: 1) fighting for livable wages, and 2) creating higher paying jobs.

    What we're doing instead is outsourcing more jobs and putting ever more downward pressure on wages here in our country.

    This is largely because our National Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups have stopped caring about our country.

    If you can make enough to support a family, wouldn't this help families stay together?

    You seem like a moral person, Michale. Families aren't breaking up because they're black. They're breaking up because people have to do insane things like work 3 jobs.

    I don't have grand kids. But if I did, I wouldn't want this situation for them.

    -David

  98. [98] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Crap ... that should have read "Creating more higher paying jobs".

    My bad ...

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except they are for many people.

    Because there aren't enough well paying jobs for everyone.

    It's unfortunate, but this is the reality. It may not have been the reality you & I faced, but it is the reality of today.

    Well, then there is a problem.. Because it makes NO SENSE to raise min wage to executive pay. By default, EVERY OTHER pay scale must rise as well..

    Regardless, I don't believe it's the reality..

    If people can't find a job, they can MAKE a job...

    Regardless of THAT, the solution is not just to give handouts and make people dependent on government..

    All that does is create a slave class...

    You seem like a moral person, Michale. Families aren't breaking up because they're black.

    Of course families aren't breaking up because they are black. They are breaking up because there is no honor or work ethic amongst the families that DO break up...

    It's a GIMME GIMME GIMME culture that Democrats foster to enslave voters...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    But my original point is valid and unaddressed..

    If people aren't thankful for the jobs they have, regardless of pay, then they will find themselves out on the streets WITHOUT any job.. Replaced by workers who would KILL for a min wage job (5-10 million illegal immigrants) or replaced by automation or turning to thuggery and find themselves another Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown...

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If people aren't thankful for the jobs they have, regardless of pay, then they will find themselves out on the streets WITHOUT any job.

    It's not unaddressed. I just largely agree with you.

    I believe people should be personally responsible.

    I believe that people like Bill Cosby (for the most part; I only disagree with his criticism of activists) have a good message.

    This shouldn't stop people from fighting to get paid better though. It shouldn't stop people from joining unions. It shouldn't stop us from finding ways to create more jobs.

    It's not personal responsibility OR activism.

    It's both.

    Why is it somehow ok for a corporation to lobby government for the laws they want, but not ok for people?

    Aren't we a country by and for the people?

    I mean, you vote, right Michale? Shouldn't other people?

    -David

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, you vote, right Michale? Shouldn't other people?

    Exactly..

    And their grievances SHOULD be addressed at the voting booth..

    NOT thru lawbreaking, violence and economic terrorism...

    If their guys/gals don't win, then they should suck it up and wait until their next chance to exercise their vote...

    But right now, they just look like spoiled brats with a buttload of sour grapes...

    If they don't like their lot in life, CHANGE IT... WORK for it..

    Don't just terrorize other people and destroy OTHER people's livelyhoods...

    I am a perfect example of what hard work can accomplish.. I work at a FLEA MARKET fer chreest's sake! And I make enough to support TWO families...

    I didn't whine and cry that I am not getting my due.. I didn't bitch and moan that society owes me a living..

    I went out and made it happen.

    I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for whiners who just want things handed to them on a silver platter..

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    akadjian wrote:

    NOT thru lawbreaking, violence and economic terrorism.

    Peaceful activism, however, has a long tradition in our country.

    It goes back at least as far as Thoreau.

    And the Boston Tea Party folks went further. They protested unjust laws and the monopoly of the British East India Company by dumping tea in the harbor. And it wasn't just any tea. It was British East India Company tea.

    Heck, you could say our country was founded by lawbreaking activists.

    I guess a better way to say this is, I'm with you if laws are just.

    I think it's more grey than you think though when laws are unjust. To use an extreme example, I wouldn't go along with Hitler's government. I don't think you would either. And crap, yes, I realize I've just brought Hitler into this. Truly, I've taken us to the bottom of the barrel :). For this, I apologize.

    I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for whiners who just want things handed to them on a silver platter.

    Me too. All these people whining about their tax breaks and spending millions on lobbying to get out of their responsibility for our country drives me nuts.

    -David

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Peaceful activism, however, has a long tradition in our country.

    It goes back at least as far as Thoreau.

    I don't have a problem with peaceful activism..

    But the problem is many think that activism entails what happened in Ferguson or Times Square or Detroit...

    Me too. All these people whining about their tax breaks and spending millions on lobbying to get out of their responsibility for our country drives me nuts.

    At least those people EARNED their money and are providing jobs for others..

    I am talking about the lusers who want $20 p/hour for flippin' burgers and emptying trash and will commit crimes and destruction if they don't get their way...

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, look at it logically..

    Let's say you go to business school to learn the ins and outs of running a franchise. You spend 2-4 yrs at school learning....

    You get hired on at a McDonalds.. You start at the bottom, work hard, pay your dues and, after 6-8 years of hard work and impressing the owners, you are promoted to Asst Manager and make $20 an hour...

    And then you get some greedy lazy and selfish "workers" that want to be paid what YOU are paid, what you put in over a DECADE to *EARN* and they want it as ENTRY level pay...

    Now, you tell me. How would that make you feel???

    I can tell you how it would make you feel. It would make you feel like you just wasted over 10 years of your life, since now some lazy-assed punk with an attitude that the world owes them a living just waltzes in and gets paid the SAME amount that you worked over a decade to achieve...

    Now, if you can see any logic in that scenario, by all means.. Point it out..

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Now, you tell me. How would that make you feel?

    I guess I think about things differently.

    In the 1940s/50s/60s people believed that eventually technology would enable us to create a society where we worked less and spent more time on the things that matter to us.

    We were going to have robots to do everything for us and we all could enjoy the benefits of such increased productivity. Remember, the Jetsons?

    We've hit the point where we have a great deal of this technology.

    How is it being used?

    It's being used not to help provide better lives for people. But to make a few people extraordinarily wealthy.

    It is also being used to make everyone else poor. The middle class in our country is completely disappearing.

    Things don't have to be this way. We have a choice what we want our society to look like.

    I think it would be great if we had a society where people got paid more and had to work less.

    If you want to fight for the reverse simply because you're mad at the kids these days (get off my lawn!!!), I guess that's your choice. But it doesn't make much sense to me.

    -David

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it would be great if we had a society where people got paid more and had to work less.

    Yea, it's called "Utopia"... It only works if everyone is goodness and light and all pulls together and golly gosh geee willickers is just as sweet and giving as can be....

    But, it's a dream.. It's a dream because there are too many Trayvon Martins in the world, too many Michael Browns in the world.. Too many people who are just lazy and mean and who want to do nothing but take everything...

    If you want to fight for the reverse simply because you're mad at the kids these days (get off my lawn!!!), I guess that's your choice. But it doesn't make much sense to me.

    It's not just kids. It's (supposed) adults who should KNOW better but are lazy and good for nothing anyways...

    The difference between us, David is that you see the world as you wish it were.. You see goodness and light in everyone, except Republicans. :D

    I see the world as it is.. And, in THAT world, the real world, you have the Trayvon Martins and the Michael Browns and the ones who want executive pay JUST for showing up...

    I'll be honest and say that your world would be awful boring to me.. :D

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, do YOU want to live in a world where you work your ass off 7 days a week 10-15 hours a day and the guy who just shows up, 9 to 5 Mon thru Fri and you BOTH get paid the exact same amount..

    Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that you would be perfectly all right with that???

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    And just remember... In a month or two, there are going to be 5 to 10 MILLION new workers that would KILL to make minimum wage...

    So, all these whiners better shape up and be happy with what they have.. Or else, they might find their poor asses out on the street with NO JOB...

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I mean, do YOU want to live in a world where you work your ass off 7 days a week 10-15 hours a day and the guy who just shows up, 9 to 5 Mon thru Fri and you BOTH get paid the exact same amount.

    Good lord. Of course not. Incentives matter.

    There will always be people like doctors and engineers who make more.

    It'd be nice to live in a world though where a family can survive on a single income.

    We can't have that though because a couple hundred people need to be billionaires.

    Where are their "family values"? How are they thinking about our country?

    -David

  111. [111] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that you would be perfectly all right with that?

    Good lord, no. Incentives matter. There will always be people who make more because they are doctors or engineers, etc.

    I would like to live in a world though where a family could support itself on a single income.

    Unfortunately, we can't have this because a couple hundred people have to be billionaires. And ... don't want to pay taxes.

    Where are their "family values"? Where is their commitment to our country?

    -David

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it into perspective for you, David....

    Starting salary for a uniformed Police Officer w/o any experience is $40,000 per year..

    That averages out to about $20 per hour...

    So, you're telling me that it is reasonable to pay a 16 yr old to flip burgers the SAME pay as a cop on the streets...

    Again, I have to ask... Where is the logic??

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    David,

    "Mr. Balko deserves a Pulitzer for that article. Some of the best reporting I've seen."

    Agreed and yet reading it apparently makes actual people "fact-challenged" about completely unrelated topics!

    JFC, non-state actor

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agreed and yet reading it apparently makes actual people "fact-challenged" about completely unrelated topics!

    Everything that comes out of your fingers is "fact challenged"...

    It comes from making false accusations...

    Get used to it, sunshine..

    Weigantia is all about facts.. You ain't got any so you have to wax on and on about non-existent chat bots and Nazi-ism...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:
  116. [116] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The difference between us, David is that you see the world as you wish it were.. You see goodness and light in everyone, except Republicans.

    Um, not really. I think I see pretty clearly how the wealth of our country is being distributed upwards to a very few.

    But riddle me this, Michale.

    I think we'd all be better off if everyone profited from the efforts of our country. "Utopia" might be a bit strong but yeah, I know we can do better because we have done better in the past.

    If you don't have a vision for a better future, what are you fighting for?

    Sincere question.

    -David

  117. [117] 
    akadjian wrote:

    @JFC-

    I think you'll find if you hang around long enough, you'll like Michale. He just comes on a little strong.

    Sincere question. Do you have anything against personal responsibility? That is, do you believe people should be responsible for themselves?

    -David

  118. [118] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Sincere question. Do you have anything against personal responsibility? That is, do you believe people should be responsible for themselves?"

    I think that's a very vague question. What does "responsible for themselves" mean? Does *anybody* get a pass on *any kind* of help or is this all or nothing proposition? I recognize that I've enjoyed a very fortunate existence and I'm disinclined to be harshly judgmental about people who draw short straws. Are you talking about welfare or what?

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Um, not really. I think I see pretty clearly how the wealth of our country is being distributed upwards to a very few.

    But what you DON'T see, what you WON'T see is that, with few exceptions, those people EARNED that wealth..

    America isn't about everyone being equal...

    It's about everyone getting an EQUAL shot..

    That's the point that you and the Left just don't seem to get..

    From birth, everyone in this country has an equal shot to be a George Soros or a Warren Buffet or a Barack Obama.

    The problem here is that everyone on the Left wants to penalize people who made the GOOD decisions in life and wants to force them to support the people who made the BAD decisions in life..

    Oh yea, you might find one or two that have made all the right decisions and has just been unlucky. ONE or TWO..

    But the vast majority of people in this country are where they are because they were lazy and/or made some really stoopid decisions..

    So, the question remains, why should the people who were smart and worked hard have to support the people who are lazy and stoopid??

    It's the Grasshopper And The Ant....

    If you don't have a vision for a better future, what are you fighting for?

    The problem is the Democrat Party way rewards laziness and sloth and criminal behavior..

    Now I don't consider that "a better future"..

    I consider "a better future" where people work hard for the betterment of themselves and this country..

    NOT for the betterment of the Democrat Party..

    Because, when all is said and done, everything that is being discussed here is for the betterment of the Democrat Party at the expense of the country.

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Your utopian vision has one fatal flaw..

    You expect the Demcoratic Party to deliver it for you..

    Under Obama and the Democrats the middle class has become poorer, the poor have become poorer and the top 10% have become richer...

    That is what I can't understand. You lay out this lollipop utopia where everyone is excellent to each other..

    Yet you support a Party whose biggest accomplishments are turning American against American and lining the pockets of the very people you claim are the problem..

    It's non sequitor... It doesn't fit.. It's contradictory...

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    and I'm disinclined to be harshly judgmental

    "{{{cough}}} bullshit..."
    -Iceman, TOP GUN

    :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think that's a very vague question.

    Fair enough.

    I was asking because I'm curious about your beliefs. How do you believe people should treat others? What are they responsible for? Or make up a question of your own choosing.

    Feel free to answer any way you want. I could say many other things but I don't want to bias you.

    -David

  123. [123] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I consider "a better future" where people work hard for the betterment of themselves and this country.

    Funny. Everyone I know is working hard.

    Who are these people you keep talking about who aren't working hard?

    The big problem I see is that we're working hard and someone else is enjoying all the benefits (and trying to take away health care, retirement, weekends, etc, etc).

    Oh, and they're trying to make us work harder and longer.

    People used to benefit much much more.

    What's the point of all this "work" if all the benefit is going to someone else?

    Your utopia seems more like slavery to me.

    -David

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny. Everyone I know is working hard.

    Except for the people protesting because they can't make $20 an hour which is what the starting pay is for a cop..

    The big problem I see is that we're working hard and someone else is enjoying all the benefits (and trying to take away health care, retirement, weekends, etc, etc).

    Oh, and they're trying to make us work harder and longer.

    No one can MAKE anyone do anything..

    This is America and there is ALWAYS a choice..

    Your utopia seems more like slavery to me.

    Actually it's YOUR utopia that is slavery.. Government dependency IS slavery...

    Which is ironic, since the Democrat Party was the Party responsible for the LAST bout of slavery..

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    David,

    "I'm curious about your beliefs"
    "Feel free to answer any way you want."

    I'm an atheist. At the AOLHuff, I was labeled an angry, militant, fundamentalist, new atheist, but they called me a teabagger there too. lol. I'm a member of the Green Party. http://www.gp.org/what-we-believe/our-platform I've been a vegetarian for so long that I no longer recall when I last ate meat. I volunteer weekly at a no-kill animal shelter and have for many years. Mostly I believe that it's too late. The End is near. There are too many people on this planet.

    I also know a lot more about health insurance than most people.

    I'm not from Cincinnati and have never lived anywhere near there. It's a screen name based on the HBO series "John From Cincinnati". My name might not even be John!

    You should not make any wagers on the first part of 108. The odds will be too short.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    You should not make any wagers on the first part of 108. The odds will be too short.

    Ya know, for someone who claims I am just a chat bot and it would be better if people ignored me, you sure have a problem NOT mentioning me in practically every one of your comments.. :D

    The reason I have endured for so long here is that, more often than not, I am proven right time and time again.. :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    chatbot,

    "you sure have a problem NOT mentioning me in practically every one of your comments."

    LOL! Since reading comprehension is a problem for you, I'll explain this carefully even though it's against my policy of not replying to chatbots.

    *David* made a prediction about *me* (I think you'll find if you hang around long enough, you'll like (the chatbot).) Then *he* asked *me* what *I* believe. *I* was replying to *David* and *I* told *him* that *I* believe *he* should not place any wagers on that proposition because *he* would lose that wager about *me*. If you weren't a chatbot, you'd be a drama queen with a big giant head.

    OK. Now it's your turn to deceptively clip something from this comment to make it sound like I've said something I haven't so you can be right. Have fun.

  128. [128] 
    akadjian wrote:

    At the AOLHuff, I was labeled an angry, militant, fundamentalist, new atheist, but they called me a teabagger there too. lol. I'm a member of the Green Party.

    I don't believe much in labels.

    I'm quite familiar with the Greens. A friend helped write that platform. I find it unfortunate, however, that he concerns himself with so much policy. Very few people outside the people who wrote that platform would ever read it.

    Policies are not beliefs. Typically, their are beliefs behind policies. But they are not beliefs.

    Perhaps beliefs is an offensive word to you. I know it is to many people. They associate it with religion and/or other tyrannical forms of power. It doesn't have to be though. Freedom is a great example of a belief that undercuts power.

    So I've got labels and policies but I still don't know what you believe. For example, you say you are a vegetarian. This tells me you don't eat meat. But it doesn't tell me why.

    Here's a couple guesses. I would say you believe in rationality or reason. I would also guess that you believe in helping people or what someone like George Lakoff would call mutual responsibility. That's about all I can gather.

    You should not make any wagers on the first part of 108. The odds will be too short.

    Fair enough. My question would be, why? Or ... rephrased, what is it that Michale does that violates your core beliefs?

    If you understand why Michale bugs you so much, I think you'll better be able to explain your beliefs.

    -David

  129. [129] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. Feel free to e-mail me at akadjian@yahoo.com. We've probably used up enough of Chris' comment space.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    chatbot,

    You prove my point once again... :D

    Your problem is that anyone who disagrees with you MUST be a chatbot because no human being with a rational mind could POSSIBLY disagree with you...

    It goes back to what Paula accused the Republicans of.. Dehumanizing your opponent..

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you understand why Michale bugs you so much,

    I bug him so much the same reason I bug most everyone so much...

    Because, more often than not, circumstances and reality prove me right.. :D

    Ferguson, Sanford, Benghazi, Immigration, IRS, VA, ISIS, Egypt, Syria, Libya, TrainWreckCare, etc etc etc..

    The list is endless....

    About the only thing I have been consistently wrong on is that damn RCP Poll!!!! :D

    But with JFC, I think it's more of a case that he can't intimidate me with immature personal attacks and childish name-calling and that just bugs the crap out of him... :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because, more often than not, circumstances and reality prove me right.. :D

    Ferguson, Sanford, Benghazi, Immigration, IRS, VA, ISIS, Egypt, Syria, Libya, TrainWreckCare, etc etc etc..

    One can add Russia and Ukraine and The Crimea to that list as well...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.