RE: An American dialogue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Nnanji -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 10:19:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I am honestly uncertain that any of the protections of the Constitution should apply to him.


I will comment further in a little but this really caught my eye as I was reading... To me the Constitution defines what should be basic human rights period. I believe that what makes us great as a country is our values apply to everyone everywhere. I know it sounds corny and perhaps naive. I know we have not, on many shameful occasions, followed that lofty ideal... but when we do we are great.

I do fear for the ideals of our founding fathers when as a nation we elect a President that has no intention or desire to act accordingly. It is sickening to hear a President attack the very foundations of justice to gain political support from the likes of Boxco... What is sad is he does not really support his ideas...but is only saying and doing what feeds his ego.

Butch



And yet most of what Trump has accomplished is overturning the previous administration’s unilateral (sans congress) illigal decrees he foisted on the country with his pen and his phone. So, I’m not seeing your argument. One example, the Dreamers act. It was illegal no matter how it tugged the heart strings. Trump gave it to congress and said make it legal. That sort of thing argues against you.




kdsub -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 10:26:38 AM)

Yes of course you are right.... giving children aid and a path to citizenship is damn right against our Constitution and Christian values.




Nnanji -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 10:33:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yes of course you are right.... giving children aid and a path to citizenship is damn right against our Constitution and Christian values.

Actually, you’re, again, arguing against yourself. It is constitutionally illigal. Your previous argument was that Trump wasn’t being constitutional and was therefore a monster. Nobody, including me, said DACA was a bad thing. We said it was a constitutional usurpation of power by a president who himself said it was unconstitutional more than once. What Trump said was, you want it, make it constitutional. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that especially since Trump said he’d direct staff to ignore it until congress acted. How does any of that argue for your first postition?




tj444 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 10:46:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Most of the talking heads pushing for the rights of those that have been marginalized aren't pushing for equal rights, it seems. It seems more like they want to be "more equal" and to have those that haven't been marginalized (primarily white males) to pay for it. Can you even imagine how decimated straight white males would be if we had to pay it back for all the marginalization that happened to every group with some combination of being not straight, not white, and/or not male? Back in the early '90's, there was preferential entry qualifications for Physical Therapy schools against from white males. Non-whites, females, and especially non-white females were preferred over white males, as long as they were reasonably close in academic qualifications.


I just love how some people like to pick times in the past when their kind was "marginalized".. so you want to pick a time, 27 or so years in the past when women were given a chance at a few jobs.. how about we go back a few years before that when women could not even vote! talk about marginalized...

Personally, I dont think white men have anything to bitch about, women still get shafted, and blacks and hispanics get shafted even more than white women do.. its just the shafting is generally more subtle now.. so go boohoo all you want, the reality is that white men still have it better than anyone else.. the majority of the politicians, CEOs/Directors of large corporations and 1% are white males, they still have a tight grip (& make the rules) on the US & world economies, politics, banking, stock market, etc..




kdsub -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 10:48:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yes of course you are right.... giving children aid and a path to citizenship is damn right against our Constitution and Christian values.

Actually, you’re, again, arguing against yourself. It is constitutionally illigal. Your previous argument was that Trump wasn’t being constitutional and was therefore a monster. Nobody, including me, said DACA was a bad thing. We said it was a constitutional usurpation of power by a president who himself said it was unconstitutional more than once. What Trump said was, you want it, make it constitutional. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that especially since Trump said he’d direct staff to ignore it until congress acted. How does any of that argue for your first postition?


I can argue it because my first position is and was right...and you and Trump and the Republican party are not following the the Constitution and are wrong... My nation would not punish children for the crimes of their fathers...bottom line... Yours would...well... in the long run we will just have to see whose vision of justice and compassion for mankind wins out.

Butch




JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 11:05:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
...
Yeah, I understand the angst is very real. The divide is very real.
And yes, there are bigots, but not everything that involves race or pride in a person's heritage is about racism. Not every issue touching upon gender is sexist. Not every conversation about LGBTQ+OMGBBQWTF's is hate speech. Not every discussion about religion freedoms and what we don't like about other religions, or people of other religions has to be discriminatory. Not every response to the latest shooting tragedy is about taking our guns.
More and more, it all boils down to "what about me and mine?". And until we can answer that, everything else is moot.


No one can take anything away from you that isn't yours (this statement and the rest of this paragraph will be using pronouns in a general way, and should not be misinterpreted as specifically applying to JVoV). The person who was hired instead of you didn't take "your" job. No one should get a leg up based on gender, gender identity, skin color, ethnicity, or lineage (unless it's a family-run business). Each decision should be based on the specific merits and qualifications of the situation.

Most discrimination is illegal in the US. Every instance of illegal discrimination should be treated the such, and each should merit appropriate consequences. As a straight white male, I should get everything I'm qualified for, unless there is another person who is more qualified. And, that should be the case for every person. I hope we can get to that point quickly.



Even if the taking isn't real, it is perceived. Very few people can admit that they're not the best person for whatever job they go after.

Then there's the idea of equality vs equity. Equality is everyone being given the same opportunity now, every step of the way, with their success based on themselves. Equity is more about doing what it takes to make sure an equal outcome is achievable, so Title 9, Affirmative Action, and other similarly motivated programs. But again, historically black colleges now have a much higher number of female graduates than male, while many classes in universities have zero black or Latino male students at all, even with AA still in place. And qualified white students are likely rejected because of quotas.

So we haven't yet addressed the root causes that prevent black males from going into higher education, much less directing them towards specific fields, so that we can eventually have a diversified workforce in all industries.

So there's the crowd screaming "we need help", and there's the crowd screaming "wtf else do u want".

It is wrong to turn away white students because there aren't enough qualified minority students applying to maintain a random quota. So where are we failing on getting those minority students qualified in the first place? Why aren't they applying?

The costs may be a huge determent. You're talking about $40k for 4 years at an in-state school, aside from actual costs of living. Out of state or private universities are gonna be at least double that, probably more. Middle class families often have trouble with those fees, but it's nearly impossible when you come from poverty and need to support yourself now, unless you can get some help, which isn't always possible from your family. In 2004, blacks made up 18% of new military recruits, that number has dropped to 17% as of 2015, though Hispanics and "others" have each gone up a total of 3%. Asians are steady at 4%.

Of course, on the flipside of that, the percentage of African Americans being incarcerated has decreased significantly since even 2000, which is good news that we don't hear about often.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/almost-nobody-is-paying-attention-to-this-massive-change-in-criminal-justice/




DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 11:16:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Actually, you’re, again, arguing against yourself. It is constitutionally illigal. Your previous argument was that Trump wasn’t being constitutional and was therefore a monster. Nobody, including me, said DACA was a bad thing. We said it was a constitutional usurpation of power by a president who himself said it was unconstitutional more than once. What Trump said was, you want it, make it constitutional. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that especially since Trump said he’d direct staff to ignore it until congress acted. How does any of that argue for your first postition?


I just thought I'd "help you out" a little.



Peace,


Michael




Greta75 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 11:42:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I just thought I'd "help you out" a little.

Peace,
Michael


Wow!
Why doesn't media report this shit! If Trump even dares have anything like that, they would be dragging it in the news for as long as possible!




Greta75 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 11:52:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
You lost me on this 'control' business. Would you care to elaborate?

I am referring to in situations where you or your husband are incapacitated, and the spouse usually is the empowered one to make decisions on their behalf. That's a very big control whoever you gift this authority to. Hell, some married folks don't even want that power in their spouse's hands and may prefer a parent or a sibling.

quote:


Do you understand what kind of legal hoops and documentation a person has to do to come close to accomplishing the same thing? Any of those types of legal documentations can also be challenged by any family member who would have otherwise been considered next of kin.

So the appropriate things to fight for isn't gay marriage, but to basically make sure every single individual on this earth, has a less red tape way to make this official and respected. Their will. If the government wanted to make this less complicated so it couldn't be contested. They could. But there is a stronger campaign to push for gay marriage than to push for this to happen. Because, alot of these things, also affect single folks, who may not want family to be responsible. Maybe they want their non-blood related "best friend" to be like the defacto person and the family could contest it later.

quote:

Whether people chose to have children or not isn't the only basis for this. There's also that other part about couples investing together, buying homes together, and all of the other stuff.

I think alot of special privileges given to married couples IS to make it easier for them to have kids. That's the point. Make their life easier. They cannot force a heterosexual couple to have kids. But as long as two heterosexual folks are having sex. Accidents can happen. Ask Lucy, she is proof. She did everything possible not to get pregnant and yet she kept getting pregnant. She has told me how all the various birth control has failed for her.

quote:

I'm not childless and neither is MP. We are not biologically the parent of each other's children. This isn't the first marriage for either of us. All of our off-spring are adults but we've only been together sixteen years, so you can figure out the math.

Same logic applies, heterosexual couples has potential to have natural kids together even if they don't want kids. I mean, the fact that a woman 70 years old can give birth. Story HERE

PS: As for asexual siblings, actually plenty in Asia. Even gay siblings, like two sisters. We see them living together for the rest of their life single. Not married as it's illegal, but they have each other. And they love each other and support each other and are each other companion for life. But you know what? Cuz it's incest, they can never marry EVEN when gay marriage is legal. They would still be illegal.




JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 11:57:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Bosco, you're perhaps one of the most ironwilled right wing posters around. When you can avoid making the knee-jerk hateful response, and present a clear headed post free of talking points, you're also one of the most well-spoken.


jv, I applaud any effort towards conversation that's respectful and eliminates the petty insults and bickering.

but ironically, given you gave examples of what im just about to say to you---criticisms of the left, or of what the left believe, or of particular groups' ways of being are not "hateful responses" or at least not necessarily so. unless youre talking about the personal animosity that appears towards another poster?

anyway---a working definition of your understanding of "talking points" and how/why they are to be avoided would be helpful.

that said, I notice people above fixated on one or two specific examples of your post and the thread is already off and running that way. im guessing that wasn't your intent or hope for the thread. maybe you can elaborate on what that actually is?



I complimented too though, and both were sincere. I refuse to wear a label like 'leftist howler'. And some of my best friends are nutsuckers. I like them better since my fun hernia scar... shivers...

I don't think we can just put people into left or right, progressive or conservative, communist or Nazi, pussyhats or deploables. As Americans (and Greta), we're all over the country, with different needs and different experiences, not to mention different views. We don't always agree with everything our party does, or certain politicians in our party do.

I think it was watching The View on Friday, with the Flynn charges being announced live. Joy Behar was ecstatic and gloating, and I just don't feel that way. I feel like whatever happens with the Mueller investigation, the scar it will leave on us all will be severe. Worse, it overshadows everything else that we should be talking about, and colors our view of the administration and anything they're trying to accomplish.

So this is about choosing country over party, making an attempt to ignore my own knee-jerk reactions, and having an honest conversation about wtf is going on. Mostly because I don't have the energy to hate or disapprove of so many people all at once.

There's plenty of topics in the OP. Pick one and roll with it, giving your absolute best response possible, from your personal perspective. And then I'll respond without calling you a dickhole or a Nazi. Well, unless you choose to promote genocide as a solution.




WhoreMods -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 12:04:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I don't think we can just put people into left or right, progressive or conservative, communist or Nazi, pussyhats or deploables. As Americans (and Greta), we're all over the country, with different needs and different experiences, not to mention different views. We don't always agree with everything our party does, or certain politicians in our party do.

Unfortunately, that sort of massive and misleading broadbrushing is where the poster you're talking to, and a few of his friends start. I suppose when you've spent your whole adult life voting for people who don't actually stand for anything or have any values (poiltical or otherwise) to speak of, a binary "us and them" attitude is a good way of conning yourself that you're voting for something other than personalities.




Greta75 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 12:15:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That doesn't answer the question. Does it matter why a couple don't have kids? Does it matter that they actually chose to not have kids, or that they couldn't?

The government cannot force two heterosexual couples to have kids. But as long as two heterosexual are married and having sex. The potential for a kid is possible. As they are two natural human beings who can produce kids together.

I also feel like I am repeating the same thing over and over again that heterosexual people who has bodily defects that does not allow them to have kids get exempted, because it's not their fault that, what is natural is not working. But they can still adopt and provide a healthy family nucleus for unwanted children. By having the most healthy family nucleus which is a mom and a dad.

Compared to zero potential for two men to produce a child. Or having two moms and two dads is also the less ideal situation for unwanted kids deprived of their blood parents which is of 2 different genders.

That's the difference.





DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 12:26:08 PM)



I was on this thread, early this morning before there were any responses. I watched as it just kind of "evolved" into a one-issue thread (Not the original poster's fault, obviously. We can't control responses of others)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

jv, I applaud any effort towards conversation that's respectful and eliminates the petty insults and bickering.

but ironically, given you gave examples of what im just about to say to you---criticisms of the left, or of what the left believe, or of particular groups' ways of being are not "hateful responses" or at least not necessarily so. unless youre talking about the personal animosity that appears towards another poster?

anyway---a working definition of your understanding of "talking points" and how/why they are to be avoided would be helpful.

that said, I notice people above fixated on one or two specific examples of your post and the thread is already off and running that way. im guessing that wasn't your intent or hope for the thread. maybe you can elaborate on what that actually is?



Like bounty, I applaud the spirit of the message.

Then, I started thinking: "Gee! Why would anyone hesitate to engage courteously with Lefties, in general and you in particular? I can't fathom what might cause that."

I was content to "sit on the sidelines" and not say anything until ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
So this is about choosing country over party, making an attempt to ignore my own knee-jerk reactions, and having an honest conversation about wtf is going on. Mostly because I don't have the energy to hate or disapprove of so many people all at once.

There's plenty of topics in the OP. Pick one and roll with it, giving your absolute best response possible, from your personal perspective. And then I'll respond without calling you a dickhole or a Nazi. Well, unless you choose to promote genocide as a solution.


Sorry, but based upon my most recent interactions with you, those two paragraphs ring a little hollow.







Greta75 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 12:41:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
It is wrong to turn away white students because there aren't enough qualified minority students applying to maintain a random quota. So where are we failing on getting those minority students qualified in the first place? Why aren't they applying?

For the record! Asians are also turn away despite being the tinier minority. It's harder for Asians than white folks because, there is a only a tiny quota for Asians, and Asians are freaking good at studies because of the culture of their parents being obsess with grades and micro-managing their children's studies.
Let's not lump all minorities together and basically just say African Americans. It starts from culture and parenting why fewer seek higher education. I don't know why cost is an issue since there are student loans. And if they are really smart, there are scholarships.

On top of that, US has this beautiful scheme where they don't even have to pay back 100% of their loan amount later. This is pretty awesome and makes no excuse for anybody saying they can't afford college fees. Hell the loan is practically guaranteed by the government. AND they actually waive it off after 25 yrs even if you haven't finish paying. That's awesome! I am utterly confuse about Americans complaining about student loan debt bringing them down. I am afraid of a loan that I could never pay finish. Which is why when I took a housing loan to buy my house, I put most of my income into paying off my loan ASAP. So I don't get stuck with it forever. And now it's fully paid and I am relief as hell. But knowing that after 20 to 25 years, all the unpaid portion would be waived. It's like woo hoo! Just take it! That's super duper awesome for studies! Every American should be taking advantage of this and just have the education needed!

Most major types of federal student loans—except for PLUS loans for parents—are eligible for an IDR plan. Income-driven plans allow borrowers to cap their monthly payments to 10%, 15%, or 20% of disposable income for up to 20 or 25 years, after which the remaining balance is forgiven.




Nnanji -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 12:46:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Most of the talking heads pushing for the rights of those that have been marginalized aren't pushing for equal rights, it seems. It seems more like they want to be "more equal" and to have those that haven't been marginalized (primarily white males) to pay for it. Can you even imagine how decimated straight white males would be if we had to pay it back for all the marginalization that happened to every group with some combination of being not straight, not white, and/or not male? Back in the early '90's, there was preferential entry qualifications for Physical Therapy schools against from white males. Non-whites, females, and especially non-white females were preferred over white males, as long as they were reasonably close in academic qualifications.


I just love how some people like to pick times in the past when their kind was "marginalized".. so you want to pick a time, 27 or so years in the past when women were given a chance at a few jobs.. how about we go back a few years before that when women could not even vote! talk about marginalized...



The 19th Amendment to the Constitution which gave women the right to vote was ratified on August 18, 1920. That was nearly one hundred years ago. Given that an Amendment to the Constitution takes a couple of years to get ratified, it’s been one hundred years since the process was determined. If we could just get liberals to stay in the present era we might be able to have constructive conversations.




Nnanji -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 12:53:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yes of course you are right.... giving children aid and a path to citizenship is damn right against our Constitution and Christian values.

Actually, you’re, again, arguing against yourself. It is constitutionally illigal. Your previous argument was that Trump wasn’t being constitutional and was therefore a monster. Nobody, including me, said DACA was a bad thing. We said it was a constitutional usurpation of power by a president who himself said it was unconstitutional more than once. What Trump said was, you want it, make it constitutional. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that especially since Trump said he’d direct staff to ignore it until congress acted. How does any of that argue for your first postition?


I can argue it because my first position is and was right...and you and Trump and the Republican party are not following the the Constitution and are wrong... My nation would not punish children for the crimes of their fathers...bottom line... Yours would...well... in the long run we will just have to see whose vision of justice and compassion for mankind wins out.

Butch

Your original argument was this:

quote:

“To me the Constitution defines what should be basic human rights period. I believe that what makes us great as a country is our values apply to everyone everywhere.“


Now your argument is that you believe an unconstitutional law was right because it feels like it should be right and Trump was wrong, and a monster, because he followed the constitution. How can someone argue with you when you so easily change the foundation of your beliefs and your arguments?




DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 1:04:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Your original argument was this:

quote:

“To me the Constitution defines what should be basic human rights period. I believe that what makes us great as a country is our values apply to everyone everywhere.“


Now your argument is that you believe an unconstitutional law was right because it feels like it should be right and Trump was wrong, and a monster, because he followed the constitution. How can someone argue with you when you so easily change the foundation of your beliefs and your arguments?


Unfortunately, it's a common tactic. Check this out, from a recent thread:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5092130



Peace,


Michael




bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 1:42:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
So this is about choosing country over party, making an attempt to ignore my own knee-jerk reactions, and having an honest conversation about wtf is going on. Mostly because I don't have the energy to hate or disapprove of so many people all at once.


to me this line alone is worth talking about.

I don't tend to think "party" so much as I do principles and for good or bad, those principles are often tied to particular parties.

to me your statement about choosing "country over party" sounds too much like a compromising of principles. when I look at the principles I have, I also hold them as being the best for the country.

someone else comes along, with competing principles, and believes likewise.

how then shall we live?






DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 1:44:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Then there's the idea of equality vs equity. Equality is everyone being given the same opportunity now, every step of the way, with their success based on themselves. Equity is more about doing what it takes to make sure an equal outcome is achievable, so Title 9, Affirmative Action, and other similarly motivated programs. But again, historically black colleges now have a much higher number of female graduates than male, while many classes in universities have zero black or Latino male students at all, even with AA still in place. And qualified white students are likely rejected because of quotas.


Everyone should be treated the same, but results aren't going to be the same. That comes down to the individual.

quote:

So we haven't yet addressed the root causes that prevent black males from going into higher education, much less directing them towards specific fields, so that we can eventually have a diversified workforce in all industries.
So there's the crowd screaming "we need help", and there's the crowd screaming "wtf else do u want".
It is wrong to turn away white students because there aren't enough qualified minority students applying to maintain a random quota. So where are we failing on getting those minority students qualified in the first place? Why aren't they applying?
The costs may be a huge determent. You're talking about $40k for 4 years at an in-state school, aside from actual costs of living. Out of state or private universities are gonna be at least double that, probably more. Middle class families often have trouble with those fees, but it's nearly impossible when you come from poverty and need to support yourself now, unless you can get some help, which isn't always possible from your family. In 2004, blacks made up 18% of new military recruits, that number has dropped to 17% as of 2015, though Hispanics and "others" have each gone up a total of 3%. Asians are steady at 4%.


Are you trying to say we need to treat minorities differently, when it comes to college expenses? Middle class families DO struggle with the high cost of college. Part of that is due to Big Government being involved, btw

Currently, the higher your socioeconomic class, the less money is available to your for college. So, those who come from poorer or lower socioeconomic classes are already getting more help than those who aren't poor and/or from higher socioeconomic classes.

I suppose the next great big idea is going to be for schooling to be paid for by taxpayers completely. Unfortunately, public universities have already demonstrated that they'll spiral costs up if that were to ever happen.




DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/3/2017 1:51:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Most of the talking heads pushing for the rights of those that have been marginalized aren't pushing for equal rights, it seems. It seems more like they want to be "more equal" and to have those that haven't been marginalized (primarily white males) to pay for it. Can you even imagine how decimated straight white males would be if we had to pay it back for all the marginalization that happened to every group with some combination of being not straight, not white, and/or not male? Back in the early '90's, there was preferential entry qualifications for Physical Therapy schools against from white males. Non-whites, females, and especially non-white females were preferred over white males, as long as they were reasonably close in academic qualifications.

I just love how some people like to pick times in the past when their kind was "marginalized".. so you want to pick a time, 27 or so years in the past when women were given a chance at a few jobs.. how about we go back a few years before that when women could not even vote! talk about marginalized...
Personally, I dont think white men have anything to bitch about, women still get shafted, and blacks and hispanics get shafted even more than white women do.. its just the shafting is generally more subtle now.. so go boohoo all you want, the reality is that white men still have it better than anyone else.. the majority of the politicians, CEOs/Directors of large corporations and 1% are white males, they still have a tight grip (& make the rules) on the US & world economies, politics, banking, stock market, etc..


Why is it okay for someone who isn't as qualified to get a job or acceptance into a college program over someone who is more qualified?

Do you realize you are arguing that it's okay to discriminate based on gender and/or skin color?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125