Powell hits it on the head when he talk about racialization as structural phenomenon not individuated reactions or individual relationships. Once you define racism as a singular psychological phenomena related only to interpersonal relations, then you ignore the real racism that exists in this country and elsewhere.
Every LAUSD, (Los Angeles Unified School District,) household or residential area is zoned to an elementary school, a middle school and a high school. If i live in the ghetto i can only attend the schools assigned to that area. Unsurprisingly, the best schools are in the more affluent neighbourhoods. In the U.K, where i grew up, as long as i have the grades , i can attend any school that accepts those grades... as long i can get there ...by bus, train or bicycle etc.
@pigneguy Having lived in LA more than a year ago, your comments seem somewhat accurate. I lived in West Hollywood briefly and then stayed with a friend a number of blocks away from USC. Big difference. My view is that Geography is destiny. Urbanity, Suburbanity, Exurbanity are all destiny. I never grew up in LA so I can only assume it must be difficult as coming up in NY or Chicago.
I'm an urbanite American. I moved and lived in many cities in the US and the world. I will speak only of the US. What you say about LA's school system is basically the same for all school systems in the US. it isn't about the grades its about where you live. We pretend we aren't stratified, but when institute policies that reinforce it, and if you watch the other two parts. you realize we need to evolve, but half the country doesn't want this. they want the good ole days back.
Here are some facts. I have seen blacks be bus into middle class schools. Within 3 years the school became a dangerous school. Fact I have seen blacks move into middle class communties and I have seen them fall with 2 to 5 years. I know plenty of you will say I am a racsist, an that it's all lies. Well if you are white do you think you could walk threw the inner city? Yet blacks can walk threw almost any white community and still itmidate whites. Thier Parents is the problem, not whites.
america needs something akin to The Doha Debates, on major network TV, for social, cultural and economic issues like these to help infuse this stuff into the minds of everyday people.
bbburton is on another Munchausian trolling spree, I see. People, please do not rise to his bait, he is an attention-seeking flamer and debating with him is like herding cats.
GREAT VIDEO. It tackles issues barely tackled in many areas of "white america" (aka mainstream media) and it tackles important issues for the majority of the population of the United States. Keep em comming real news!!!!!
Oh and the "libertarians" (a term mal-used by them) posting here are HILARIOUS. You're all clueless. Thankfully the majority of the population reject your beliefs and that little by little we move towards democracy.
Crap. Just more propaganda. You can't resolve prejudice by stealing from one group and giving it to another group. Gov interference has always been the source of institutionalized bias. The solution is to get gov out of our lives, not empowering gov to control our lives. What is being suggested is instead of letting people obtain the American dream through hard work and effort of the individual, is to reduce everyone to the same economic condition. This is absolutely ridiculous.
robin hood stole from one group who had plenty and gave to those who had nothing, you seriouly wanna say robin hood was a crook? the american dream is a scam making people free of social responsibility... you know as well as me that we are not all equal some are more equal than others, especially if you come from upper middleclass and up
Robin Hood was a thief, and the idea that he was some goody-two-shoes is a fairy tale. You know as well as anyone that success comes from perseverance and hard work. That some people have achieved their goals and others haven't isn't due to the fact that those who seek to achieve did not do so based on the failure of those who do not succeed. To claim that the American dream is a scam and then linking that to social irresponsibility is just plain ignorant.
success also requires intuition, luck and to cheat whenever possible... and the american dream is an illusion, social control, theres not room on the top for all the honest hardworking people, mostly its the crooks without decency who gets that far...
Hard work alone cannot defeat the historical advances whites gained via U.S. history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination. Just as rich white men had a jump on white indentured servants and women, whites now have a jump (varying economically) because their parents did not suffer Jim Crow and lesser practices in the north just three generations ago. The only way your strategy would work is if everyone were stripped of what they have and started from scratch, & institutional -isms removed.
This is the kind of nonsense that detracts from what reforms are really needed. How in the world do you thing slavery, segregation and discrimination became entrenched in America? It was because of politics. Gov didn't change attitudes, white people did. Who do you think started the NAACP? White people. Who do you think first spoke out against slavery? White people. Tearing down white people will not make anyone better off. It's gov that has to change, not white people.
There are a number of inaccuracies in your response I'm not even going to bother to point out, because anyone even remotely educated or truly interested in this subject can see them. What I will say, is that recognizing that race was designed to put a buffer between the white elite against the masses is not tearing down white people, and I do wonder if what the interviewee says in the third edition about talking "race" equaling "racism" in the eyes of many whites is coloring your posts.
Don't tell me I'm wrong and that you're so superior that you won't even bother to point out where I'm wrong, and thus ill informed and uneducated, because that makes you're response impotent and irrelevant. What you say is pure nonsense. Here is what is being implied: some white people are racist, therefore all white people must suffer the consequences of racism. That's like saying some men are rapists, therefore all men must have their balls cut off. It's this kind of crap that builds walls.
You completely misunderstood that comment. Uneducated on racial issues and the history of such in this country, and uninterested because if you were you would have already looked up information on this subject instead of making pure nonsense posts that continue to show you're unwillingness to look at this subject past preconceptions and bias. I can counter every statement you can come up with, but if you've already decided any race talk equals white bashing, then talking IS pointless.
Try breaking your rambling disjointed sentence up into coherent and succinct parts. My comment is on the video, not what you've posted. If you can counter what I've said, great, do so. But saying I'm wrong doesn't make you right. Who 'designed' racism as a buffer between the whit elite against the masses? Black people? This vid clearly implies that white people are to blame, and the commentator is happy that white people are no longer relevant in America. If you didn't get that, then you're lost
Yeah that would be correct if you didn't actually listen to the segment and instead inserted your own personal bias.
Please listen for a change.
Nothing was mentioned about growing "gorvernment", taking from one group and giving it to another, or empowering "government".
They talked about re-evaluating current programs and making them work more effective using FACTS, and opening dialogues. This is the roadmap for any success no matter what your objective is.
If you listened to the piece the whole thing is about changing policy. That is done exclusively through gov. He's not talking about individual bias and prejudice. His entire spiel is about 'collective' bias and prejudice and how that is institutionalized. It's crap, and using the gov to manipulate institutions to gain favor for a particular group. If you don't get that, then you're completely lost. My only objective is to get gov out of our lives, not have it further entrenched.
He's mostly talking about optimizing local state and city programs.
Here's your problem... You blindly demonize "government" without a clue.
When you drive down the street, eat a hamburger, visit the grand canyon, get educated, call the police/fire dept. You can't take a breath or take a shit without thanking the government for the *priviledged* existence you have in this country.
"Government" is only the problem when we forget that it is "by the people" and "for the people".
It's disingenuous and ignorant to cite police/fire/ambulance/education 'services' as the paradigm of good gov, and blindly elide over all the pork spending, overseas military budgets, bailouts for banks and auto manufactures, and all the rest of gov handouts that are driving the country to the brink of bankruptcy. I am sick and tired of the police/welfare state that is gaining force in this country and the military empire we pursue around the world. So don't tell me to be thankful for this gov.
Spoken like a true slave. You must be happy with the way gov is spending your money. You obviously don't know what it means to have gov out of your life. That makes you a punk. Just bend over and take it. Nobody is suggesting anarchy. I don't want a gov that knows everything there is to know about me. I don't want a gov telling me how to live my life. Do you even know anything about the Constitution and what it means? I seriously doubt it. Gov is not the source of my rights. Grow a spine.
Government out of your life means "Anarchy" as in "Absent Government". Look it up genious.
Apparently I know more about the constitution than you do, because you think it means telling you how to live your life when in fact it says the opposite.
Government is the source of your rights because what do you think protects those rights? You and your gun? Please...
Learn some history.
Then try living in a place with little government: Zimbabwe, Somalia, Parts of Afghanistan, etc.
You must be extremely uniformed to characterise Zim as a place with little gvt. On the contrary, Zimb is a typical place where there is too much gvt in all spheres of human existence, more gvt than anywhere on earth. If u listen to Mugabe or Tsvangirai on any matter on Zim, can you single out any aspect of Zim life where there is little government? If you didn't know, Zimb is probably the few places in Africa where gvt and its apparatus are firmly in control, disregarding who is in power!
Lets see.. In Zimbabwe A bunch of villagers get together and kill man to use his body parts in a "good luck" potion.
In order to make ammends for it they decide to sell their own virgin daughters (ages 7 to 15) to the men of the dead man's family for sex/marriage. They accept the offer and the girls are forced to drop out of school and work for and sleep with the men of the dead man's family.
All without arrest or prosectuion
So right the government is really involved there...
May be thats the Zimbabwe of your fantasy land and certainly not the Zimbabwe on earth on the African continent. I therefore do not find you capable of any rational discourse on Zimbabwe.
Why Google when you can support your claim with a reference. I am in Zimbabwe right now. Be careful with what you read in the news, especially if you are ignorant about a particular topic.
It must be nice having your head so far up your ass you can't see the truck that's about to run it over. Go ahead and believe that the gov protects your rights, you imbecile. What are you 12, maybe 13? Do you even watch the news? Read a newspaper? How about just viewing the shit that is happening right here in America? It's quite common for those who know nothing about rights to suggest those who do go live elsewhere. Rights are inherent, do you know what that even means? Grow up, you'll need to
Insulting people instead of addressing their comments simply means you have nothing to contribute.
OK, lets start with the basics....
Unless you live as a hermit, your "rights" mean NOTHING unless there is a governing body protecting those rights.
That's Political Science 101.
Turn off your talk radio already. FYI when someone appeals to your emotions (pride, fear, hate, parranoia, etc.) it means they are trying to get "ratings" not give you "facts"
You are clearly wrapped up in gov largess; rights only count if the gov babysits you and tells you what you must do. That is not what the Constitution is about. Your rights are inherent; you are born with them. The only role gov plays is to insure that you do not infringe on the rights of others. You decide what to do with your life, not the gov. You have a responsibility to yourself, that includes all the facets of caring and protecting yourself. If Poli Sci 101 is your standard, you're a fool.
You are completely mistaken. Your rights are the only things that have meaning, and they are inherent, not gov given. It is not the role to gov to determine 'the right policy to protect rights' as discretionary policy. I have a right to my person, my property, and my freedoms, as does everyone. Infringing on those rights is what is protected against. How in the world do you get from there to comparing the war in the middle east and social programs as policies to protect rights?! That is absurd.
Now I know you haven't read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. You are wrong, and there is no getting around that fact. Unless and until you read those documents, you're argument is without merit and completely erroneous. If I can't take your life, you can't take mine, and neither can the gov. To say otherwise is absurd. Rights are not relative, they are absolute, and baring any infringement of those rights, gov has no business interfering in anyone's life. That's the rule.
Are you really that dense? I'm saying the Constitution is the document that limits the role of gov in our lives, not expands it. And BTW it's the violation of basic rights i.e., killing, stealing, fraud, that gov is supposed to prosecute, not set rules for obtaining food, shelter, clothing, work, travel, medicine, etc. Those are the things that one must procure and decide for themselves. That is what I mean by getting the gov out of our lives. Get with the program and pay attention.
Your still as ignorant as when you first posted. And I'm sure you will continue down the road of ignorance. You continue to cite 'regulations' as if it was a mantra for the perfect life. If all the regulations you mentioned worked, then why do people still get poisoned, die in plane crashes, burn up in house fires? It's not the regulations that keep anyone safe. It's about making good choices. So you keep letting gov make those choices for you, I'm sure you'll be real safe, and just as ignorant.
Can you explain why you think talking about the concept of "opportunity being distributed" is dumb? Personally, I think that IS a discussion that needs to be had, even if it does make right-wing radio win followers, as you claim. It's easy to label someone "nutty", but I am curious to hear what "smart things" you have to say that can improve on these "stupid things".
Fair enough. First of all I dislike right wing radio a lot. But the one issue that I'm personally in sync with them on is giving any group a special advantage. I think that MLK basically felt the same way.
Also the idea of this 'discussion' is very much like the right wing calls it -- ivory tower stuff. Reality is what happens in neighborhoods. Talking won't change anything. But policy in the direction of equal opportunity, not advantaged opportunity, does work. As in Jackie Robinson.
The professor wasn't arrested because of his race, he was arrested because he had the audacity to stand up to a cop. One of the arresting officers was BLACK. Gates was arrested because he didn't kiss the cop's ass. That's all. Cops are jerks, they are uneducated, they are typically bullies, they predominately do what they do because they want to have power over other people. There are lots of cases of racial profiling, but this was not one of them
I do not think Gates situation was racial either, but it is important to note that black cops just like other black people can be racists against blacks, and are sometimes more so to prove blue is more important to them than their race. Cops protect property, blacks are associated with having none, hence no power, thus even though the issue is money, race colors the situation, which is why even rich blacks can be treated as though they have nothing, while rich whites are treated differently.
Very true, I just thought it was a missed opportunity to have a discussion about law enforcement. The whole debate about the Gates situation would have been handled differently if he were white.We would be talking about police excesses, use of force, and things of that nature, instead of worrying about the racial component which I have - in my own observation - always thought was a secondary issue with police, a close second, but still behind the corruption of authority.
I agree that this could have certainly been an opportunity to discuss police excesses, in addition to their role in enforcing the will of the elite, however because Gates falls into the category of the elite, and the police are an extension of that reach, race would have to be apart of this convo. Unfortunately race was used as a misdirect, as opposed to a factor.
Powell hits it on the head when he talk about racialization as structural phenomenon not individuated reactions or individual relationships. Once you define racism as a singular psychological phenomena related only to interpersonal relations, then you ignore the real racism that exists in this country and elsewhere.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
Every LAUSD, (Los Angeles Unified School District,) household or residential area is zoned to an elementary school, a middle school and a high school. If i live in the ghetto i can only attend the schools assigned to that area. Unsurprisingly, the best schools are in the more affluent neighbourhoods. In the U.K, where i grew up, as long as i have the grades , i can attend any school that accepts those grades... as long i can get there ...by bus, train or bicycle etc.
pigneguy 2 years ago
@pigneguy Having lived in LA more than a year ago, your comments seem somewhat accurate. I lived in West Hollywood briefly and then stayed with a friend a number of blocks away from USC. Big difference. My view is that Geography is destiny. Urbanity, Suburbanity, Exurbanity are all destiny. I never grew up in LA so I can only assume it must be difficult as coming up in NY or Chicago.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@pigneguy
I'm an urbanite American. I moved and lived in many cities in the US and the world. I will speak only of the US. What you say about LA's school system is basically the same for all school systems in the US. it isn't about the grades its about where you live. We pretend we aren't stratified, but when institute policies that reinforce it, and if you watch the other two parts. you realize we need to evolve, but half the country doesn't want this. they want the good ole days back.
lordblazer 1 year ago
Here are some facts. I have seen blacks be bus into middle class schools. Within 3 years the school became a dangerous school. Fact I have seen blacks move into middle class communties and I have seen them fall with 2 to 5 years. I know plenty of you will say I am a racsist, an that it's all lies. Well if you are white do you think you could walk threw the inner city? Yet blacks can walk threw almost any white community and still itmidate whites. Thier Parents is the problem, not whites.
Parasiteman69 2 years ago
america needs something akin to The Doha Debates, on major network TV, for social, cultural and economic issues like these to help infuse this stuff into the minds of everyday people.
demerc 2 years ago
bbburton is on another Munchausian trolling spree, I see. People, please do not rise to his bait, he is an attention-seeking flamer and debating with him is like herding cats.
flyhead2 2 years ago
GREAT VIDEO. It tackles issues barely tackled in many areas of "white america" (aka mainstream media) and it tackles important issues for the majority of the population of the United States. Keep em comming real news!!!!!
Oh and the "libertarians" (a term mal-used by them) posting here are HILARIOUS. You're all clueless. Thankfully the majority of the population reject your beliefs and that little by little we move towards democracy.
bootleg42 2 years ago
Crap. Just more propaganda. You can't resolve prejudice by stealing from one group and giving it to another group. Gov interference has always been the source of institutionalized bias. The solution is to get gov out of our lives, not empowering gov to control our lives. What is being suggested is instead of letting people obtain the American dream through hard work and effort of the individual, is to reduce everyone to the same economic condition. This is absolutely ridiculous.
bbburton 2 years ago
robin hood stole from one group who had plenty and gave to those who had nothing, you seriouly wanna say robin hood was a crook? the american dream is a scam making people free of social responsibility... you know as well as me that we are not all equal some are more equal than others, especially if you come from upper middleclass and up
mollen19 2 years ago
Robin Hood was a thief, and the idea that he was some goody-two-shoes is a fairy tale. You know as well as anyone that success comes from perseverance and hard work. That some people have achieved their goals and others haven't isn't due to the fact that those who seek to achieve did not do so based on the failure of those who do not succeed. To claim that the American dream is a scam and then linking that to social irresponsibility is just plain ignorant.
bbburton 2 years ago
success also requires intuition, luck and to cheat whenever possible... and the american dream is an illusion, social control, theres not room on the top for all the honest hardworking people, mostly its the crooks without decency who gets that far...
mollen19 2 years ago
Hard work alone cannot defeat the historical advances whites gained via U.S. history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination. Just as rich white men had a jump on white indentured servants and women, whites now have a jump (varying economically) because their parents did not suffer Jim Crow and lesser practices in the north just three generations ago. The only way your strategy would work is if everyone were stripped of what they have and started from scratch, & institutional -isms removed.
Dedgurlsingblu 2 years ago
This is the kind of nonsense that detracts from what reforms are really needed. How in the world do you thing slavery, segregation and discrimination became entrenched in America? It was because of politics. Gov didn't change attitudes, white people did. Who do you think started the NAACP? White people. Who do you think first spoke out against slavery? White people. Tearing down white people will not make anyone better off. It's gov that has to change, not white people.
bbburton 2 years ago
There are a number of inaccuracies in your response I'm not even going to bother to point out, because anyone even remotely educated or truly interested in this subject can see them. What I will say, is that recognizing that race was designed to put a buffer between the white elite against the masses is not tearing down white people, and I do wonder if what the interviewee says in the third edition about talking "race" equaling "racism" in the eyes of many whites is coloring your posts.
Dedgurlsingblu 2 years ago
Don't tell me I'm wrong and that you're so superior that you won't even bother to point out where I'm wrong, and thus ill informed and uneducated, because that makes you're response impotent and irrelevant. What you say is pure nonsense. Here is what is being implied: some white people are racist, therefore all white people must suffer the consequences of racism. That's like saying some men are rapists, therefore all men must have their balls cut off. It's this kind of crap that builds walls.
bbburton 2 years ago
You completely misunderstood that comment. Uneducated on racial issues and the history of such in this country, and uninterested because if you were you would have already looked up information on this subject instead of making pure nonsense posts that continue to show you're unwillingness to look at this subject past preconceptions and bias. I can counter every statement you can come up with, but if you've already decided any race talk equals white bashing, then talking IS pointless.
Dedgurlsingblu 2 years ago
Try breaking your rambling disjointed sentence up into coherent and succinct parts. My comment is on the video, not what you've posted. If you can counter what I've said, great, do so. But saying I'm wrong doesn't make you right. Who 'designed' racism as a buffer between the whit elite against the masses? Black people? This vid clearly implies that white people are to blame, and the commentator is happy that white people are no longer relevant in America. If you didn't get that, then you're lost
bbburton 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dedgurlsingblu 2 years ago
Yeah that would be correct if you didn't actually listen to the segment and instead inserted your own personal bias.
Please listen for a change.
Nothing was mentioned about growing "gorvernment", taking from one group and giving it to another, or empowering "government".
They talked about re-evaluating current programs and making them work more effective using FACTS, and opening dialogues. This is the roadmap for any success no matter what your objective is.
oolong2 2 years ago
If you listened to the piece the whole thing is about changing policy. That is done exclusively through gov. He's not talking about individual bias and prejudice. His entire spiel is about 'collective' bias and prejudice and how that is institutionalized. It's crap, and using the gov to manipulate institutions to gain favor for a particular group. If you don't get that, then you're completely lost. My only objective is to get gov out of our lives, not have it further entrenched.
bbburton 2 years ago
He's mostly talking about optimizing local state and city programs.
Here's your problem... You blindly demonize "government" without a clue.
When you drive down the street, eat a hamburger, visit the grand canyon, get educated, call the police/fire dept. You can't take a breath or take a shit without thanking the government for the *priviledged* existence you have in this country.
"Government" is only the problem when we forget that it is "by the people" and "for the people".
oolong2 2 years ago
It's disingenuous and ignorant to cite police/fire/ambulance/education 'services' as the paradigm of good gov, and blindly elide over all the pork spending, overseas military budgets, bailouts for banks and auto manufactures, and all the rest of gov handouts that are driving the country to the brink of bankruptcy. I am sick and tired of the police/welfare state that is gaining force in this country and the military empire we pursue around the world. So don't tell me to be thankful for this gov.
bbburton 2 years ago
Apparently you didn't understand the statement:
"Government" is only the problem when we forget that it is "by the people" and "for the people".
Those examples you mention (millitary, bailouts, pork etc.) are not for the "people" but for the "few".
To suggest that anarchy is better than government is just ignorant to how far we've come as a civilization.
Yes there are problems with all governments, but to say you want "government out of our lives" is just stupid.
oolong2 2 years ago
Spoken like a true slave. You must be happy with the way gov is spending your money. You obviously don't know what it means to have gov out of your life. That makes you a punk. Just bend over and take it. Nobody is suggesting anarchy. I don't want a gov that knows everything there is to know about me. I don't want a gov telling me how to live my life. Do you even know anything about the Constitution and what it means? I seriously doubt it. Gov is not the source of my rights. Grow a spine.
bbburton 2 years ago
Government out of your life means "Anarchy" as in "Absent Government". Look it up genious.
Apparently I know more about the constitution than you do, because you think it means telling you how to live your life when in fact it says the opposite.
Government is the source of your rights because what do you think protects those rights? You and your gun? Please...
Learn some history.
Then try living in a place with little government: Zimbabwe, Somalia, Parts of Afghanistan, etc.
oolong2 2 years ago
You must be extremely uniformed to characterise Zim as a place with little gvt. On the contrary, Zimb is a typical place where there is too much gvt in all spheres of human existence, more gvt than anywhere on earth. If u listen to Mugabe or Tsvangirai on any matter on Zim, can you single out any aspect of Zim life where there is little government? If you didn't know, Zimb is probably the few places in Africa where gvt and its apparatus are firmly in control, disregarding who is in power!
rukanda 2 years ago
Lets see.. In Zimbabwe A bunch of villagers get together and kill man to use his body parts in a "good luck" potion.
In order to make ammends for it they decide to sell their own virgin daughters (ages 7 to 15) to the men of the dead man's family for sex/marriage. They accept the offer and the girls are forced to drop out of school and work for and sleep with the men of the dead man's family.
All without arrest or prosectuion
So right the government is really involved there...
oolong2 2 years ago
May be thats the Zimbabwe of your fantasy land and certainly not the Zimbabwe on earth on the African continent. I therefore do not find you capable of any rational discourse on Zimbabwe.
rukanda 2 years ago
Dude it's in the news... It's not like I just pulled the story out of my behind. Google it.
oolong2 2 years ago
Why Google when you can support your claim with a reference. I am in Zimbabwe right now. Be careful with what you read in the news, especially if you are ignorant about a particular topic.
rukanda 2 years ago
It must be nice having your head so far up your ass you can't see the truck that's about to run it over. Go ahead and believe that the gov protects your rights, you imbecile. What are you 12, maybe 13? Do you even watch the news? Read a newspaper? How about just viewing the shit that is happening right here in America? It's quite common for those who know nothing about rights to suggest those who do go live elsewhere. Rights are inherent, do you know what that even means? Grow up, you'll need to
bbburton 2 years ago
Typical...
Insulting people instead of addressing their comments simply means you have nothing to contribute.
OK, lets start with the basics....
Unless you live as a hermit, your "rights" mean NOTHING unless there is a governing body protecting those rights.
That's Political Science 101.
Turn off your talk radio already. FYI when someone appeals to your emotions (pride, fear, hate, parranoia, etc.) it means they are trying to get "ratings" not give you "facts"
oolong2 2 years ago
You are clearly wrapped up in gov largess; rights only count if the gov babysits you and tells you what you must do. That is not what the Constitution is about. Your rights are inherent; you are born with them. The only role gov plays is to insure that you do not infringe on the rights of others. You decide what to do with your life, not the gov. You have a responsibility to yourself, that includes all the facets of caring and protecting yourself. If Poli Sci 101 is your standard, you're a fool.
bbburton 2 years ago
That's pretty long winded way of saying you agree with me.
On Rights you admit that:
"role gov plays is to insure that you do not infringe on the rights of others"
I don't care what rights you think you were "born" with, without government your rights don't mean SQUAT.
Then people disagree on the right gov policy to protect rights. Some think war in the middleeast while others think social programs.
Now that's a REAL conversation to have rather than blindly blaming government
oolong2 2 years ago
You are completely mistaken. Your rights are the only things that have meaning, and they are inherent, not gov given. It is not the role to gov to determine 'the right policy to protect rights' as discretionary policy. I have a right to my person, my property, and my freedoms, as does everyone. Infringing on those rights is what is protected against. How in the world do you get from there to comparing the war in the middle east and social programs as policies to protect rights?! That is absurd.
bbburton 2 years ago
There is no such thing as Inherent rights
You have a right to property and person only after a certain age, before that the law gives your parents most of those rights.
Property is also relative, some cultures have no concept of owning land.
"Right to life" is also relative. Think abortion or murderers/criminals.
Government determines the rules by which we live by.
For some protecting "life" or "person" means waging war on "terrorists" for others it means "universal healthcare"
oolong2 2 years ago
Now I know you haven't read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. You are wrong, and there is no getting around that fact. Unless and until you read those documents, you're argument is without merit and completely erroneous. If I can't take your life, you can't take mine, and neither can the gov. To say otherwise is absurd. Rights are not relative, they are absolute, and baring any infringement of those rights, gov has no business interfering in anyone's life. That's the rule.
bbburton 2 years ago
LOL The Irony... You're using the documents of our government to argue against the need for our government.
Can't you see how absurd that is?
BTW the gov. DOES take life in cases of capital punishment, police/FBI shootings, etc.
We form government for protection and to set the rules by which we live by.
Fighting against government and wanting it "out of your life" is like fighting your finger against your hand.
Therefore argue against specific policies NOT your own government.
oolong2 2 years ago
Are you really that dense? I'm saying the Constitution is the document that limits the role of gov in our lives, not expands it. And BTW it's the violation of basic rights i.e., killing, stealing, fraud, that gov is supposed to prosecute, not set rules for obtaining food, shelter, clothing, work, travel, medicine, etc. Those are the things that one must procure and decide for themselves. That is what I mean by getting the gov out of our lives. Get with the program and pay attention.
bbburton 2 years ago
The conversation started with your statement of "getting government out of our lives" and "rights are not government given"
Now you're back peddling...
That's fine, but you still haven't a clue.
A few things you mention:
Food: regulation keeps feces and spoiled meat out of your hamburgers.
Travel: regulation and traffic laws keep you from dying in car/plane accidents.
Shelter: regulation keeps people from selling you a house that could burn down due to faulty wiring.
oolong2 2 years ago
Your still as ignorant as when you first posted. And I'm sure you will continue down the road of ignorance. You continue to cite 'regulations' as if it was a mantra for the perfect life. If all the regulations you mentioned worked, then why do people still get poisoned, die in plane crashes, burn up in house fires? It's not the regulations that keep anyone safe. It's about making good choices. So you keep letting gov make those choices for you, I'm sure you'll be real safe, and just as ignorant.
bbburton 2 years ago
Instead of insults maybe you should come up with real arguments Instead of what they feed you on talk radio.
Statements like "get gov out of our lives" and "rights are not gov given" are complete nonsense and meant to appeal to emotions not logic.
The point was to show you how stupid those statements are.
Disagree with *specific* policies all you want and you SHOULD where it doesn't make sense.
But to think that gov. hasn't played a part in your freedoms and privileges is just dumb.
oolong2 2 years ago
@@1:52
Great argument about racial subtext and welfare.
7jerryv7 2 years ago
This is the kind of nutty liberal that helps to make it easy for right wing radio to win followers.
He says we need to have a "discussion" in America about "how opportunity is distributed." How dumb can you get.
The right wing nuts eat these guys for breakfast. If liberals would stop saying such stupid things, there could be progress. But they don't.
CanterburyCat 2 years ago
Can you explain why you think talking about the concept of "opportunity being distributed" is dumb? Personally, I think that IS a discussion that needs to be had, even if it does make right-wing radio win followers, as you claim. It's easy to label someone "nutty", but I am curious to hear what "smart things" you have to say that can improve on these "stupid things".
conradecek 2 years ago
Fair enough. First of all I dislike right wing radio a lot. But the one issue that I'm personally in sync with them on is giving any group a special advantage. I think that MLK basically felt the same way.
Also the idea of this 'discussion' is very much like the right wing calls it -- ivory tower stuff. Reality is what happens in neighborhoods. Talking won't change anything. But policy in the direction of equal opportunity, not advantaged opportunity, does work. As in Jackie Robinson.
CanterburyCat 2 years ago
The professor wasn't arrested because of his race, he was arrested because he had the audacity to stand up to a cop. One of the arresting officers was BLACK. Gates was arrested because he didn't kiss the cop's ass. That's all. Cops are jerks, they are uneducated, they are typically bullies, they predominately do what they do because they want to have power over other people. There are lots of cases of racial profiling, but this was not one of them
Craigipedia 2 years ago 2
I do not think Gates situation was racial either, but it is important to note that black cops just like other black people can be racists against blacks, and are sometimes more so to prove blue is more important to them than their race. Cops protect property, blacks are associated with having none, hence no power, thus even though the issue is money, race colors the situation, which is why even rich blacks can be treated as though they have nothing, while rich whites are treated differently.
Dedgurlsingblu 2 years ago
Very true, I just thought it was a missed opportunity to have a discussion about law enforcement. The whole debate about the Gates situation would have been handled differently if he were white.We would be talking about police excesses, use of force, and things of that nature, instead of worrying about the racial component which I have - in my own observation - always thought was a secondary issue with police, a close second, but still behind the corruption of authority.
Craigipedia 2 years ago
I agree that this could have certainly been an opportunity to discuss police excesses, in addition to their role in enforcing the will of the elite, however because Gates falls into the category of the elite, and the police are an extension of that reach, race would have to be apart of this convo. Unfortunately race was used as a misdirect, as opposed to a factor.
Dedgurlsingblu 2 years ago