Good spirited humor from the Right!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
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.

Interestingly, this is the very reason why the faith based stuff should not happen IMO. I mean despite being a hypocritical, elitist, bigoted, lying, a$$hole, Pat Robertson's charities do perform good work for the suffering around the world. The same could be said for the Catholic Church - I mean just look at Mother Theresa literally for goodness sake. These organizations do a far better job of administering to the poor, etc., than the Fed.'s ever will. Yet, it troubles me that Pat R. is getting any money from the govt. even if it is in the far less dicussed form of tax exemption, much less directly from the faith based charity stuff.

Pat R. said in the beginning he was not going to take the money because he would have to change his ways to comply with the strings attached (See http://www.patrobertson.com/NewsComm...nitiatives.asp )

Yet, now he takes the money

Again, I cannot wait for the Sons of Satan to demand money to support their "Goat Meat Cookout" to feed the poor.

[sodascouts]

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.

Exactly. It seems to me that looking to the candidates who say they represent the views of their constituencies might be an acceptable way to gauge where the majority of the party stands.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Exactly. It seems to me that looking to the candidates who say they represent the views of their constituencies might be an acceptable way to gauge where the majority of the party stands.

Also, CNN had a 2002 poll on govt. paid reparations. The majority of White Americans were against it and the majority of Black Americans were for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations/

Note: I really do not have a huge issue with the govt. alone starting some kind of scholarship fund or other charity as a reparation. I just do not think individuals or companies should have to pay individual people for it.

[Sugar]

The question that always comes to my mind when talking about this is, if reparations are in order, how do we get past it? And don't say, "when minorities achieve equality," because that is immeasurable. Is it when a certain percentage are going to college or achieve a pre-determined economic status? Do we figure out who are the direct decendants of slaves and pay them all a fixed figure and call it paid in full? Seems to me that part of the frustration of those who oppose reparations do so because they see it as an unending financial drain. Or maybe you don't see it as ever ending. This is one I struggle with, so I'm looking forward to your responses...

[greatdarkwing]

Well, speaking from experience as a minority, I CAN NOT STAND affirmative action. This might make some people laugh, but its true... As a Cuban-American, I know that affirmative action might help me, but i can not stand because i feel it is almost degrading... I like to ge to places (jobs, etc..) on my own, not with the help of some govt. policy. Frankly, that is my position on it given my background...

But also, some of my friends love affirmative action.

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Sugar
The question that always comes to my mind when talking about this is, if reparations are in order, how do we get past it? And don't say, "when minorities achieve equality," because that is immeasurable. Is it when a certain percentage are going to college or achieve a pre-determined economic status? Do we figure out who are the direct decendants of slaves and pay them all a fixed figure and call it paid in full? Seems to me that part of the frustration of those who oppose reparations do so because they see it as an unending financial drain. Or maybe you don't see it as ever ending. This is one I struggle with, so I'm looking forward to your responses...

That was and is my point. It will never be enough for everyone. So, I say enough and let's move on to a goal that is obtainable. But, people cannot let go of what politicians on both sides have inserted into their heads for years.

[strandinthewind]

Speaking of the evil in politics, David Duke is considering running again.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

I think we can all agree this guy, bring an ex-Grand Wizard of the KKK and an avowed white supremist, is an a$$hole. Even Louisianians were not that crazy and I am from there!!

Interestingly, I met this $h!thead once in a bar where he was stumping for votes. He has had so much plastic surgery in an effort to disguise himself from the pics of him at KKK rallies, that he actually looks like the devil.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Speaking of the evil in politics, David Duke is considering running again.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

I think we can all agree this guy, bring an ex-Grand Wizard of the KKK and an avowed white supremist, is an a$$hole. Even Louisianians were not that crazy and I am from there!!

Interestingly, I met this $h!thead once in a bar where he was stumping for votes. He has had so much plastic surgery in an effort to disguise himself from the pics of him at KKK rallies, that he actually looks like the devil.

I heard about that. Isn't he in prison? or do I have him mixed up with someone else?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I heard about that. Isn't he in prison? or do I have him mixed up with someone else?

No - he is still in prison for mail and tax fraud, but may get out in April. He is running the campaign from the prison pay phone, to which he has limited access - I mean really

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - he is still in prison for mail and tax fraud, but may get out in April. He is running the campaign from the prison pay phone, to which he has limited access - I mean really

I'll never understand how we elect some of the people we do.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'll never understand how we elect some of the people we do.

I was living in Louisiana at the time and was in college at the Univ. of S.W. La. (USL). The general feeling in the couintry was conservatism was the way to go. Also. I remember at the time the country was just sort of also going through a feeling of high taxes and the blacks are getting everything by not working and that cromes against black people received more attention due to the race card (their words not mine). So, Duke ran on a platform of "I will make sure white and all people get what they deserve, etc." I remember the whole thing just sickened me.

Here is another site:

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/d...duke_intro.asp

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
As I have stated before, consistency is a big thing for me. And I don't see a heck of a lot of it in the extreme left. Just my moderate conservative viewpoint!

For example: I don't see how it is logical that the rich aren't paying their share of taxes when the wealthiest 1% (those making over $300K/yr) are paying approx. 34% of all income tax received by the government. And the wealthiest 5% (those making over $125K/yr) are paying more than HALF (53%) of all income tax received. To me, the argument that "poor people pay more than rich people" does not seem to follow if only 5% of people are paying more than 50% of the taxes.

My source: The IRS

I think the reason that people say the tax cuts benefit "only the wealthiest of the wealthy" is because it sounds good. People, esp. poorer people, lump together all rich people and in general hate for whatever reason (some true some not) all rich people and/or think somehow that if you make $200,000 a year you have money to burn, etc. While making $200,000 certainly wouldn't suck and I am not saying these people are having missed meal cramps like the truly poor do, it certainly in today's world does not provide that person with money to burn. For example, $240,000 a year gets you $20,000 a month, which after taxes (state, federal, county, etc.) is $10,000 a month. Once you subtract a house payment (probably about $2,500 (a modest house in most big cities), property taxes (car and land) $1,000, student loan $750 (assuming grad. degree), car payment $500 (for one regular 30,000 car not a Benz), living expenses, etc. - you can see the $10,000 goes quickly and that is not even including luxury items like a vacation, clothing, child care, etc.

Again, people always bitch about the tax cuts, yet as I said before, I know no one, rich or poor, who pays the IRS one dime more than they have to. I mean if people are so worried about it, I say they should put their money where their mouth is and pay the IRS more or don't take tax credits/deductions that are similarly based on wealth - the IRS certainly will take it

Finally, I think all of this class warfare tripe is cruel to all. I mean it is almost like if we just taxed everyone who makes over $200,000 at 99%, the same politicians would bitch about the remaining 1% saying it was based on greed

[ShamHy89]

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.

I don't think you can really compare what two completely different peoples went through like this. You say they weren't taken from their homes, but during the famine they were starved out...then even if they survived the way over to America, they were working in effect, as slaves and sent into war to die for a country they didn't know...not to mention being considered the most vile humans on the Earth (next to the blacks). Let's just say both cultures suffered through much.

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

Very well said...let's just agree to remember both peoples were brutally treated in different, but terrible ways.

Shamus

[strandinthewind]

Of interest from cnn.com

Slave reparations case dismissed

Judge protects right to amend, refile claim
Monday, January 26, 2004 Posted: 2:16 PM EST (1916 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves against corporations they say profited from slavery, saying the plaintiffs had established no clear link to the companies they targeted.

Full article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/0....ap/index.html

Again, I do not get how anyone can be later held financially liable for doing a legal act - hence the U.S. Cont.'s prohibition of ex post facto laws. But, others see it differently and think the wrongness of the legal act supercedes its legality. So, the courts will decide.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Of interest from cnn.com

Slave reparations case dismissed

Judge protects right to amend, refile claim
Monday, January 26, 2004 Posted: 2:16 PM EST (1916 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves against corporations they say profited from slavery, saying the plaintiffs had established no clear link to the companies they targeted.

Full article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/0....ap/index.html

Again, I do not get how anyone can be later held financially liable for doing a legal act - hence the U.S. Cont.'s prohibition of ex post facto laws. But, others see it differently and think the wrongness of the legal act supercedes its legality. So, the courts will decide.

Yes. I don't see how you can hold someone responsible for something that at the time was a legal act. While I can understand the sense of wrongness in the "legal" act, there is a very real reason that our Constitution prohibits such ex post facto laws. If the right to an abortion would ever be outlawed in the future, that would be like charging someone with murder for having an abortion now.