or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › History has been made
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

History has been made - Page 4

post #121 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

Yeah yeah. Real nice pic of a "terrorist fist jab" there Artman. Well, that's fox news's description of it anyways. I swear. You couldn't make sh*t like that up if you tried.

Terrorist fist jab


Just look at the expression on Michelle's face. It's clear she's thinking "Soon, my pet. Soon our hands will be on whitey's throat. Share with me now the secret sign of our hatred, and revel."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #122 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Even though we, too, are fastened to a dying animal.

Hey, maybe that could be McCain's new campaign slogan. Kind of a downer, sure, but bold.

Bold in a maverick way?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #123 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Woot! Shawn! It only took two posts for mydo to give me a "boring"!

Anyway, mydo, I want you to tell me what you mean when you say that Obama is "racial" when it is politically expedient. You keep talking about the politically expedient part. I want to know what, precisely, it means for Barack Obama to be "racial."

Yea it is boring to try to have a discussion with someone that is unaware of the politics of race in the US. Unaware of the marketing of Obama as a post racial candidate. And cannot connect the dots from the rhetoric of what's being called post racial now to what came before.

When you know something about the politics of race in the US maybe we can continue.
post #124 of 151
... don't mind. Humor us with your view of this "politics of race" thingie you keep referring to, OK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Yea it is boring to try to have a discussion with someone that is unaware of the politics of race in the US. Unaware of the marketing of Obama as a post racial candidate. And cannot connect the dots from the rhetoric of what's being called post racial now to what came before.

When you know something about the politics of race in the US maybe we can continue.

Racism

[CENTER]
Quote:
Racism, by its simplest definition, is discrimination based on racial group. People with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their race, or in the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits. Racism typically starts with the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.

Quote:
According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '

This definition does not make any difference between prosecutions based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the ethnicity and race remains debatable among anthropologists. According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".

[/CENTER]

You mean like slavery, discrimination, Jim Crow laws, segregation, The War of Northern Aggression, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, etceteras?

Question: Does the definition of racism need to be updated to account for this "politics of race" thingie you keep referring to?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #125 of 151
Wow. Franksargent's never heard of "racial politics." Or being difficult and obtuse.

Uh, "stunning."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #126 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wow. Franksargent's never heard of "racial politics." Or being difficult and obtuse.

Uh, "stunning."

Hey dude, don't imagine you noticed the links I posted?

I'm waiting for those of you on the right to please expand on this thing you all call "politics of race" circa 2008, and how does this differ from any other period of American history.

I welcome you to expand on this, in your own words. Oh, and please try to avoid using "hint-hint" or "wink-wink" or "nod-nod" type language to express your POV. Thank you very much.

I mean is it these "viral emails" or something else, other than the obvious nature of the political players involved.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #127 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Yea it is boring to try to have a discussion with someone that is unaware of the politics of race in the US. Unaware of the marketing of Obama as a post racial candidate. And cannot connect the dots from the rhetoric of what's being called post racial now to what came before.

When you know something about the politics of race in the US maybe we can continue.

I'm starting to feel like I'm asking you to describe the Munich Pact or something.

I'm asking something very simple: what do you mean when you say Obama is "racial" on the southside when he needs votes and "post racial" when he's on the national stage. What, specifically, does it mean to be "racial"?

You said that it meant that he joined a Black church in Chicago "when he needed the votes," but that doesn't make any sense, considering he was in the church for 20 years. And it also doesn't make any sense in terms of his being "post racial."

I would just like to see you either explain this little talking point or scurry away back under whatever rock you crawled out from under, complaining as you go that I'm "boring" or "deliberately obtuse."

So. Please. What do you mean when you say that Obama is "racial"?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #128 of 151
As an aside, I am finding it absolutely hillarious that someone would deign to call any southerner unaware of racial politics in the US.

We, both black and white, breathe this stuff for breakfast, munch on it during lunch, sip it at dinner, and lay our heads on it at night. You simply cannot ignore it or the motives of all sorts of people would be completely unimaginable...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #129 of 151
I would guess that Mydo's idea is that Midwinter is "deliberately unaware" of the new, right wing definition of "racial", that being "to the extent that black Americans behave as is race had a bearing on their lives, they are racists."

Which, I predict, will be the great point of cognitive dissonance that will be used in the campaign to render all discussion of race into infuriating gibberish.

Rendering possible topics of discussion into infuriating gibberish has become a favorite tactic of the right, but I can't tell if this is done expediently on a case to case basis or if there is an idea about that the obliteration of coherent discourse is a win for the right, which can always rely on preverbal animosity and pictures of freckle faced cheer leaders in the golden afternoon light to keep pulling those strings.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #130 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

So. Please. What do you mean when you say that Obama is "racial"?

Michelle and Barrack Obama are not Spike Lee. All I got.
post #131 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

As an aside, I am finding it absolutely hilarious that someone would deign to call any southerner unaware of racial politics in the US.

Yeah. That was kind of funny, wasn't it?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #132 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I would guess that Mydo's idea is that Midwinter is "deliberately unaware" of the new, right wing definition of "racial", that being "to the extent that black Americans behave as is race had a bearing on their lives, they are racists."

Which, I predict, will be the great point of cognitive dissonance that will be used in the campaign to render all discussion of race into infuriating gibberish.

Rendering possible topics of discussion into infuriating gibberish has become a favorite tactic of the right, but I can't tell if this is done expediently on a case to case basis or if there is an idea about that the obliteration of coherent discourse is a win for the right, which can always rely on preverbal animosity and pictures of freckle faced cheer leaders in the golden afternoon light to keep pulling those strings.

It's just the adoption of postmodernist interrogations of truth, etc. The problem, of course, is that that only works when NOLA isn't underwater and Iraq isn't going to shit.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #133 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It's just the adoption of postmodernist interrogations of truth, etc. The problem, of course, is that that only works when NOLA isn't underwater and Iraq isn't going to shit.

Absolutely, although you'd be the better judge as to whether or not the right's version of interrogating truth has made any sense compared to the academic edition. My impression is that they just sort of glommed onto a glib reading of "truth is contingent" and went straight from there to "all bets are off and whoever says something the loudest the mostest is right." Which is sort of like learning about logical fallacies and then eagerly pressing them into service because you also heard they were effective.

We may be at one of those historic switcheroo points in American politics, where in this instance the Dems become the pragmatists and the Republicans become associated with a lot of confusing rhetoric and "principals" that nobody cares about. DMZ notwithstanding, I don't think most Americans are very fond of being told, in really elaborate ways, that we're fucked and there's nothing to be done, although we could always kill time by hating on liberals.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #134 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It's just the adoption of postmodernist interrogations of truth, etc. The problem, of course, is that that only works when NOLA isn't underwater and Iraq isn't going to shit.

post #135 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

In other words, because Obama is so obviously intelligent and honest (question begging aside), is the only reason one would vote against him would be because of his race?

Of course not - two separate intelligent people can disagree on issues, based on different values or logical premises. For example an atheist may think that early abortion is fine because no brain activity is
taking place, while a religious person thinks that the fertilized egg is "magic from god that shall not be
disrupted", neither incompatible position is a result of stupidity - just different premises.

If you think that socialized medicine, etc, is bad, then you won't vote for Obama no matter how smart
you think he is. I am voting for Obama (as long as HRC is not on the ticket) even though I disagree with
his Iraq plan, because I am counting on him being smart enough to think on his feet and do the right
things in the moment. So my first choice is Obama and my second choice is McCain - McCain is better
for my pocketbook (and I can afford to fly my daughters to Canada for abortions if needed), and Obama
is better IMHO for the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I've looked pretty closely at his policy ideas, and frankly they alarm me. It's all old line Democrat thinking. If all of his ideas were somehow implemented I think it starts to make sense to move out of the US just to cover one's assets (so to speak).

For example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

:It's never going to change enough to obscure the fact that Canadians are way, way cooler.

But we are too polite to say so, even though it is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You're obviously swallowing the full course of "McCain is Bush III." Not reality. As far as McCain/HRC- What are they really that far apart on...?

Abortion, court appointments, gay marriage, socialized medicine - pretty much everything not on your list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc View Post

Well the history of USA en Europe is not exactly the same. The equal rights for black and white in USA are not so old (just a few decades).
Of course France, germany or any other european country are not perfect at all and this is not the subject.
I just found that the symbolism of a black bi racial president will be great. Of course only politic is important, but Obamas can take advantage of it's symbolism, especially for foreign politic.

Russia is part of Europe, and it seemed more racist against black people than the US. The fact that
I have a black half-brother was the big thing against me when I went to court to adopt there, and
my bodyguard/driver made lots of comments about the picture of the black guy advertising the Benetton store in the mall.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #136 of 151
Obama is not advocating for socialized medicine. He's advocating for government paid private provided health care for those that cannot get coverage otherwise. He's also advocating for cost reductions but I'm not sure how exactly he can do that given it is private provided. He's hitting on the use of evidence based medicine but that wont be popular with many americans I would imagine.
post #137 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Obama is not advocating for socialized medicine. He's advocating for government paid private provided health care for those that cannot get coverage otherwise. He's also advocating for cost reductions but I'm not sure how exactly he can do that given it is private provided. He's hitting on the use of evidence based medicine but that wont be popular with many americans I would imagine.

Nearly every well-meaning system "crafted" by our government has become an excuse to raise our taxes, invade our privacies, trample our rights and serve as a springboard to create more government to reign in 'out of control government'!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #138 of 151
Huh? Obama is right about using evidence based medicine. It's the most intelligent thing I've heard from a candidate about health care reform.

Public paid private provided health care will cost more than people want to pay I'm going to guess.

I heard a great bit on NPR (science friday I think) where the guest basically said that you can have private or public provided health care. You can have private or public paid health care. Basically four options. Take your pick. Right now we have private paid and private provided health care. It costs too much and many don't get covered. I would guess that if we moved to public paid private provided health care it would still cost too much. Things need to slide on the provided side.
post #139 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Huh? Obama is right about using evidence based medicine. It's the most intelligent thing I've heard from a candidate about health care reform.

Public paid private provided health care will cost more than people want to pay I'm going to guess.

I heard a great bit on NPR (science friday I think) where the guest basically said that you can have private or public provided health care. You can have private or public paid health care. Basically four options. Take your pick. Right now we have private paid and private provided health care. It costs too much and many don't get covered. I would guess that if we moved to public paid private provided health care it would still cost too much. Things need to slide on the provided side.

Commie.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #140 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I would guess that if we moved to public paid private provided health care it would still cost too much. Things need to slide on the provided side.

Yea.. the government has such a wonderful track record... they really "lower costs" when they get involved in things.

Also... medical service in the US is not currently a "free market" system. It is a blended system. It's a stretch to attack medical care in the US as a "failure of the free market" when, in reality, it has not been a free market for decades.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #141 of 151
How about increasing the tax on un-necessary items that tend to hurt people (guns, tobacco, alcohol, casinos, Windows PCs, etc.) to about 300% and using the income to pay for healthcare?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #142 of 151
Sure you could do that (add Xbox to the list) but you're still paying for something that cost too much and is used too often and ineffectively.

I have a small unnoticed sebaceous cyst on my chest. Perfectly harmless. Should the government pay to have it removed? I bet I could get my insurance company to pay for it. I used to be that I could get a dermatologist to yank it in his office. Today it's "surgery" The simple became complex. How did that happen?

My cholesterol is borderline and I have a history of heart disease in my family. My doctor says there is little I can do about it but if I loose 20 pounds it might go down, otherwise lipitor. \ So I lost 30 pounds I get rechecked soon. If it's still border line I'm on drugs for the rest of my life. Maybe only because a company realized they could make money off of it and so they invented a must have solution. To not use it now would be unethical.

Medical imaging seems way overused.

Should we pay for peoples' sports injuries?

...


I don't have a lot of answers and I know Obama and McCain don't either.
post #143 of 151
Healthcare is a very big, complicated entity that very few people have answers for.

There is simply so much money to be had (or lost in a lawsuit).

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #144 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How about increasing the tax on un-necessary items that tend to hurt people (guns, tobacco, alcohol, casinos, Windows PCs, etc.) to about 300% and using the income to pay for healthcare?

Can we add a tax to senseless liberal regulation? That'd be a mint.

And BTW... we already have an 11% tax on guns, and sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol, and casinos report winnings over a certain amount for income tax purposes. So, to answer your question... we already tax those things. You'd actually hurt the government revenue stream by raising taxes by 300% on "sin tax" items. The government needs people smoking and drinking, and gambling, and the economic impact of the shooting/hunting industry is billions every year- sales and income taxes paid. It's already gotten to the point where smokers deserve a "thank you" and "keep smoking" because of the number of "children we are able to insure."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #145 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Should we pay for peoples' sports injuries?

I can't wait for responses to this question...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #146 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Healthcare is a very big, complicated entity that very few people have answers for.

There is simply so much money to be had (or lost in a lawsuit).

We need to defang the AMA.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #147 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

We need to defang the AMA.

Yea I don't know what to make of the AMA. It gets very complex when you start to talk about the supply of doctors and setting reimbursement rates? Shutting out other specialist. Then add into the mix all the other professional boards.
post #148 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Yea I don't know what to make of the AMA. It gets very complex when you start to talk about the supply of doctors and setting reimbursement rates? Shutting out other specialist. Then add into the mix all the other professional boards.

My dad recommended The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the making of a vast industry. We need to completely rework the system, and get rid of the existing gatekeepers. Throwing more money at those gatekeepers and calling it "free" or "change" or "reform" is the worst thing we could possibly do.


Quote:
Winner of the 1983 Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Prize in American History, this is a landmark history of how the entire American health care system of doctors, hospitals, health plans, and government programs has evolved over the last two centuries."The definitive social history of the medical profession in America....A monumental achievement."--H. Jack Geiger, M.D., "New York Times Book Review"


http://books.google.com/books?id=FK4...reviews_anchor

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #149 of 151
Yea but when you start to futz with peoples' business models they don't like it much. Maybe an antitrust suit against the AMA is in order?
post #150 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Yea but when you start to futz with peoples' business models they don't like it much. Maybe an antitrust suit against the AMA is in order?

Torches and pitchforks?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #151 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


Russia is part of Europe, and it seemed more racist against black people than the US. The fact that
I have a black half-brother was the big thing against me when I went to court to adopt there, and
my bodyguard/driver made lots of comments about the picture of the black guy advertising the Benetton store in the mall.

I dont know much russia, and I tend to forget that it belong to europe, because it extend far away in asia.
I also think that USA evolved a lot in the last two decades.
Nearly 25 years ago I was visiting USA with my parents. In the plane, a black women was speeching with my father, and at the arrival of the plane, the family of the women did not seemed to be happy to see her with white people, until she said that we were french.
In europe in contrary I think that the spirits do not evolved much, people do not accept, that you can't be both french and be black or maghrebian or whatever. Most european refuse the fate of becoming a multicolored continent.
Note also, that a multicolored countrie does not make sense, until all it's citizens sare some common values. For me being french or whatever european idendity, is more related to a culture than anything else, even if it's normal that everybody bring with him, his own particular piece of culture. The important thing that we have something in common, and that the exchange is possible.
Unfortunately it's not always the case except sports.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › History has been made