Good spirited humor from the Right!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh lord, yes, it was incredibly slanted. I was looking forward to watching something good and entertaining, but as soon as the first three minutes aired, my eyes were rolling and my hand was itching for the remote. Check out his book for more. I picked it up at Barnes and Noble's, but quickly threw it down.

I was reading O'Neills book, doing sit ups and watching that bullsh*t intermittently (I like to multitask) and I'm about ready to fire off a letter to Barbara Walters to tell her to get this goon off of her show. I was particularly disturbed by his views on the enviroment, especially the use of DDT. When he jumped into the Hudson River, I was hoping he'd stay there.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Numbers are available from the IRS.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Rob

I repeat, figures don't lie but liars can figure.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I extrapolated this from the dearth of moderate Democrats running for office who support reparations, assuming they were trying to appeal to the majority of moderate voters. However, I will take some time and do a little research and see if I can't find something more definite.

That's what I thought.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I've never seen anything to support that. Where have you?

And I'm sorry, but to compare what the slaves went through to what the Irish went through is rather silly and I'm sure many blacks would take offense to it. Was it harsh for both? Of course. Was it much harsher for the slaves? You bet your ass it was.

Let the black people you allege take offense all they want, but they have no corner on the market of suffering at the hands of the "white" or any other peoples.

I mean I do not think it is silly at all to compare the Irish being brought to the U.S. in the late 1700 and 1800's basically against their will (go to America or die of starvation) for the sole purpose of providing cheap labor that the employers knew most likely would die while providing is any better than being brought here against you will in a slave situation. I submit they are both equally as horrible but at least the slaves got fed, housed, and cared for. The Irish essentially were brought here to die had no such "luxury;" they were considered an expendable resource while the slaves were considered an asset. In fact, the North basically bribed the Irish males getting off of the boats in New York to become citizens right there and then and then shipped them of to fight for the Union Army in the Civil War; which I assert was the same as sending them to their deaths.

Interestingly, the same could be said for a significant number of the Chinese in this period. After all, the railroads used them as a resource as opposed to an asset as well.

In the end, I am just tired of everyone saying one group had it worse than another group did 200 years ago. I say we all just need to accept that it was all horrible and move on. Until we move on, I assert no peace can be had. But, people cannot do that; they seem to want to get bogged down in this my great . . . great grandparents had it much harder than your's did. So, pay me. That is just beyond me as I see no logic in it. But others do and the debate, therefore continues and probably will 200 years from now.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Hey, if you can show me that the Irish were taken from their homeland, tortured, forced to live in their own defecation for months on end, were barely given an ounce of food in weeks, were whipped and brutalized dozens of times each month, were hung just for being black, were believed to be monsters here to rape women, and countless other atrocities, I'll be happy to listen. Next to what happened to the Jews under Hitler, what happened to the slaves is the second greatest atrocity in the world.

Do you really think every slave was treated that way? It is illogical to assume so. Again, slaves were expensive. Why would the buyer kill their asset or cripple them to where they could not work? So, I say yes, slavery was a horrible thing that should have never ever happened. But to assume every last one of them were treated horribly is illogical.

[strandinthewind]

Here are some sites regarding the history of the Irish. Note: most are thesis, which means they are probably not that neutral in there conclusion, but the facts appear sound:

http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/irish.htm

http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/phil/facul.../gernon03.html

[strandinthewind]

Lord - perhaps too many posts in a row

Interestingly, I equate Pat Robertson with people like Michael Moore. Both use fear, prejudice, and incorrect facts to make their points. Yet, I have seen Michael Moore praised. I think that is wrong. I think his form of hatred of the far right is just as bad as Pat Robertson's form of hatred. Yet, when Michael Moore is atrtacked it is like all of sudden everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not get that.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by gldstwmn


That's what I thought.

You were right! But is that really such a crazy way to attempt to ferret out the moderate Democrat viewpoint? How else do you suggest I do so, when figures are not readily available? I've even asked and no one seems to know. I am not trying to distort here.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, I equate Pat Robertson with people like Michael Moore. Both use fear, prejudice, and incorrect facts to make their points. Yet, I have seen Michael Moore praised. I think that is wrong. I think his form of hatred of the far right is just as bad as Pat Robertson's form of hatred. Yet, when Michael Moore is atrtacked it is like all of sudden everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not get that.

Since I made the Pat Robertson comment, I'll respond....

I actually don't care one bit for Michael Moore. Liberal or Conservative, I don't care for the man and the way he railroads people.
But that's just me... I've never liked that style.

Still, having said that, I think anything Michael Moore does is utterly innocuous when you consider the fact that Pat Robertson disguises his intolerance and prejudices as a love for God.
He implies, or downright states, to his followers that homosexuality (for example) is a sinful, contemptable thing, and he asks them to pray for the "safety" of marriage, and for the retirement of the liberal Supreme Court justices who helped strike down the law against sodomy. He also states that God will punish all those who do things to help benefit gays.
And he does all of this while professing that he's teaching God's word, and following God's wishes.

I'm sorry, but that's absolutely heinous, and is far worse than anything Michael Moore has ever said or done. So I definitely don't see a comparison.

[strandinthewind]

Okay, Iwent to the Democratic National Committe website ( www.dnc.org ) and typed in reparation in the search engine. Nothing came up. So, I conclude the DNC has no stated position on this issue.

Interestingly, when you put slavery into the search engine, you get the 2000 Democratic Platform. Then, in the section in which slavery is mentioned, it says:

BUILDING ONE AMERICA

Democrats believe that God has given the people of our nation not only a chance, but a mission to prove to men and women throughout this world that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths and creeds, can not only work and live together, but can enrich and ennoble both themselves and our purpose. America's diversity is expanding, yet amidst important signs of progress, there is widespread evidence of persistent discrimination, growing racial segregation of our schools and neighborhoods, and dream-crushing barriers to opportunity. We cannot - we dare not - remain a nation divided. Our vision is of an America healed of hatreds and misunderstanding, with equality and opportunity so rich that legacies of discrimination and exclusion will be found only in history books, and not in our communities. To that end, Democrats support creation of a commission of distinguished scholars and civic leaders to examine the history of slavery, discrimination, and exclusion suffered by all minorities; to report on the continuing effects of those tragic chapters in our history; and to make appropriate recommendations on behalf of the American people.

___________________________________________________

I had to chuckle and think - like W, the Democrats think God has given them a mission.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Since I made the Pat Robertson comment, I'll respond....

I actually don't care one bit for Michael Moore. Liberal or Conservative, I don't care for the man and the way he railroads people.
But that's just me... I've never liked that style.

Still, having said that, I think anything Michael Moore does is utterly innocuous when you consider the fact that Pat Robertson disguises his intolerance and prejudices as a love for God.
He implies, or downright states, to his followers that homosexuality (for example) is a sinful, contemptable thing, and he asks them to pray for the "safety" of marriage, and for the retirement of the liberal Supreme Court justices who helped strike down the law against sodomy. He also states that God will punish all those who do things to help benefit gays.
And he does all of this while professing that he's teaching God's word, and following God's wishes.

I'm sorry, but that's absolutely heinous, and is far worse than anything Michael Moore has ever said or done. So I definitely don't see a comparison.

I think most fair minded people see Robertson and Moore for what they truly are. They are just extremists.

Society shouldn't be overly concerned with them. Just keep educating yourselves and make up your own minds.

Rob

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I had to chuckle and think - like W, the Democrats think God has given them a mission.

It's just too bad that those two missions are so totally different.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Okay, Iwent to the Democratic National Committe website ( www.dnc.org ) and typed in reparation in the search engine. Nothing came up. So, I conclude the DNC has no stated position on this issue.

Interestingly, when you put slavery into the search engine, you get the 2000 Democratic Platform. Then, in the section in which slavery is mentioned, it says:

BUILDING ONE AMERICA

Democrats believe that God has given the people of our nation not only a chance, but a mission to prove to men and women throughout this world that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths and creeds, can not only work and live together, but can enrich and ennoble both themselves and our purpose. America's diversity is expanding, yet amidst important signs of progress, there is widespread evidence of persistent discrimination, growing racial segregation of our schools and neighborhoods, and dream-crushing barriers to opportunity. We cannot - we dare not - remain a nation divided. Our vision is of an America healed of hatreds and misunderstanding, with equality and opportunity so rich that legacies of discrimination and exclusion will be found only in history books, and not in our communities. To that end, Democrats support creation of a commission of distinguished scholars and civic leaders to examine the history of slavery, discrimination, and exclusion suffered by all minorities; to report on the continuing effects of those tragic chapters in our history; and to make appropriate recommendations on behalf of the American people.

___________________________________________________

I had to chuckle and think - like W, the Democrats think God has given them a mission.

** Sigh **

Rob

Nice find...

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Since I made the Pat Robertson comment, I'll respond....

I actually don't care one bit for Michael Moore. Liberal or Conservative, I don't care for the man and the way he railroads people.
But that's just me... I've never liked that style.

Still, having said that, I think anything Michael Moore does is utterly innocuous when you consider the fact that Pat Robertson disguises his intolerance and prejudices as a love for God.
He implies, or downright states, to his followers that homosexuality (for example) is a sinful, contemptable thing, and he asks them to pray for the "safety" of marriage, and for the retirement of the liberal Supreme Court justices who helped strike down the law against sodomy. He also states that God will punish all those who do things to help benefit gays.
And he does all of this while professing that he's teaching God's word, and following God's wishes.

I'm sorry, but that's absolutely heinous, and is far worse than anything Michael Moore has ever said or done. So I definitely don't see a comparison.

Johnny - I am not saying the message of Pat R. is not perhaps more damaging. In many ways I think it is. I am just comparing these two IMO nutcases in the context of the far side of each political party relying on what they say as the be all and end all of truth.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
I think most fair minded people see Robertson and Moore for what they truly are. They are just extremists.

Society shouldn't be overly concerned with them. Just keep educating yourselves and make up your own minds.

I am concerned though, because our government is giving money to Pat Robertson, to further his cause.

And, frankly, that's scary.

It's one thing to write him off as an extemist, but it's another to think that there are powerful people (most especially the President) in our government who are financially backing the hate he espouses.
And it's all coming out of OUR wallets.

That is something to be concerned with, in my opinion... and one of the millions of reasons I won't be voting for Bush again this time.