Elaine Neades is right on track in referring to the bias against anything favorable toward Republicans. The News is replete with anti-Republican articles.
Likewise, she expressed exactly my feelings toward the news media in general.
On Friday, my husband encountered a News representative wanting us to change from a four-day cycle to an all-week delivery. The representative said that because subscriptions had declined the News was making a special offer. My husband declined the offer. Indeed, I expressed to my husband on Thursday that when our subscription expires that we should strongly consider not renewing it. Apparently, others have or are considering the same. Newspapers should print the news and not be propaganda machines.
This letter has not been edited.
I'm sure, however, that Ms. Gibson would renew her subscription if the RMN was a GOP propganda machine. She needs to remember one thing- bias in your favor is still bias, and still just as bad.Posted by BO on September 10, 2007 02:09 PM
you are a sheepish moron who is controlled by you rulers in Washington.
ANYONE who labels themselves a republican or a democrat OR ANY political affiliation perpetuate this countries downfallPosted by Fresh on September 10, 2007 02:24 PM
Hey bo bo,When truth is told through the media it is called conservative bias.When facts are change to lies it's called liberal bias.When facts are totally left out it's called liberal bias.Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 02:31 PM
Your point is well taken, Mrs. Gibson. The Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post are both in the Democrat camp. I hope that more people will speak up like yourself. In the meantime, try the Wall Street Journal editorials.Posted by Brian Stuckey on September 10, 2007 02:33 PM
But remember, the truth has a liberal bias.
If Republilcs do something good or newsworthy, the paper will print it. Seems that some progress is being made with North Korea, that is a Republican effort, that was in the paper.
There are columnists supporting the administration, it has both liberal and conservative in it.Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 03:22 PM
All facets of the media fear the GOP (grand old perverts). This band of brothers and sisters cut and ran, and wouldn't investigate fully, that Bush is a 40+ year AWOLee and deserter. Felon hires fellow felon. USSC Judge Alito is also a UCMJ-felon (AWOLee and deserter). Alito pimped and exploited taxpayers for 7 years of "free" ROTC college education (JD/undergrad degrees). Alito opted out of his 11 years active military duty obligation. His "guise" is his time as a federal law clerk. Federal law clerk isn't mentioned in my copies of the Uniform COde of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Manual of Court Martial. Therefore, Alito should serve 3 years in prison with his "affirmative action" home-boys.
Mitt is "W". Both got "daddy NAM" draft deferments. Cong. Bush put "W'" in racially-segregated Texas Air National Guard. Mitt's pappy was in Nixon's cabinet. When NAM broke-out, Mitt broke for his Mormon mission. Black Muslim Elijah Muhammad, sought a religious draft-deferment and he was rewarded with a 3 year federal prison sentence. His son, Wallace D. Muhammad, sought a religious draft deferment too. Wallace was also sentenced to 3 years in federal prison. Elijah was Muhammad Ali's religious advisor. Mitt owes black folks 3 years in federal prison.Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 10, 2007 03:40 PM
Anita Sue, you could not be more wrong. If media has a liberal bias, how come the majority of the country that wants withdrawal from Iraq is still portrayed as some sort of "liberal fringe." The "mainstream" position on all issues is still the conservative position, and no matter how many people join the "fringe" (right now it's over 60%), you always hear it referred to in those terms.
Don't confuse Republicans being sleazy with some sort of liberal bias. It's just Republicans actually being sleazy.Posted by on September 10, 2007 04:14 PM
RMN news today, page 35. Two articles on the war, one liberal one conservative.
If this isn`t what conservs want, what balance do they want? Maybe 60-40 or 70-30.....Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 05:56 PM
We Americans have all been lazy and should be ashamed that milti-national corporations have effectively taken control of our media and airwaves.
The so-called conservatives have been whimpering about the "liberal media" for years, yet when we ask that the Fairness in Broadcasting provision be reinstated, they sputter and balk and change the subject.
Why? It's simple ...they DON'T want the truth out there.
Cons have learned the lessons of the Nazi propaganda machine well; ie
1) Convince the masses we're being attacked. (fearmongering).
2) Promote nationalism. (Wrap yourself in the flag).
3) Brand all dissenters as un-patriotic. (remember the Dixie Chicks?)
We need to hear from the sanity that is the Liberal Americans who didn't fall for the BS in the first place.
Fairness in Broadcasting is only fair, and if you've got a problem with that, you probably had a yellow ribbon magnet on the ass-end of your SUV.
And you've been played for a sucker.
It's time to "kick ass" (to paraphrese W,)
Only this time we need to kick ass on the bastards who exploited 9/11 for profit and political gain.
And we all know who they are.
Bring it on.
It's time to kill ass on the bastards who are supporting Al Qaeda over our troops.These lowlife anti-american teasonist liberals need to be kick out of this country.We need to send some chick over to kick dmz's ass.Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 08:02 PM
It's time to kill ass on the bastards who are supporting Al Qaeda over our troops.These lowlife anti-american teasonist liberals need to be kick out of this country.We need to send some chick over to kick dmz's ass.Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 08:06 PM
Take your frickkin meds again already ,
they're wearing off.
zPosted by on September 10, 2007 08:32 PM
Keithy & z,
You've made my point . Thank you very much!
Peace and Love
How much coverage have CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, etc ... devoted to Clinton's acceptance of nearly a million dollars from a fugitive?
Not only is the story ripe with the possibility of corruption of the likely next president, the recent arrest of Hsu is at once funny and absurd. To be sure, this is a "sexy" story that you would expect to be covered with greater zest should a republican have been involved.
Only anectodal to be sure.
The real evidence of a liberal bias in the print media are the well-documented self-identification of an overwhleming majority of "journalists" as liberal.
The source, you will see, is anything but another conservative thinktank.
Of course a portion of the media lean right (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc...) but the studies have consistently shown an overall left-leaning tendancy.
"The truth has a liberal bias" what the he-- does that mean?
AFPosted by on September 11, 2007 06:58 AM
"Romney's national finance committee co-chairman Alan B. Fabian was, according to an August 9 Associated Press article, "charged in a 23-count indictment unsealed Thursday [August 9] with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice." The AP reported that Fabian "allegedly ran a scheme to make $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment, spending the money instead on beach real estate and private jet travel." Fabian resigned from Romney's finance committee shortly after being indicted."
I've heard far more from the conservatively dominated media about Clinton and Hsu than the above tiny piece of important news about Romney and Fabian.Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 07:26 AM
This is too funny a letter to pass up. The poor victimized Republicans not getting their fair share of slanted articles printed. Boo hoo. They are afraid to the point of hysteria that this media bias is might actually turn out to be what's known as reality. Everyone knows that reality has a lefty bias.
Both papers endorsed Bush in 2004. The mainstream media is owned by and in bed with the corporate conglomerates. The media has been a bunch of craven whores in regards to the occupation of Iraq.
What the wingnuttery really want is to either convert the rest of the news media to behave like the Republican News Network (Faux News). Probably the real direction this is going is for the nutjobs on the right to stop getting their information from any other source than Faux News so that they can be totally manipulated by the propaganda efforts of the radical right. Real news is scary stuff if you are a die hard righty. Real Americans aren't afraid of information that is different from their political perspective. Only the wussy Republicans are scared of unfiltered news.Posted by Wes on September 11, 2007 07:38 AM
Have those who think the RMN is "liberal" actually READ their editorials?
If you don't like hearing facts that offend your Right-Wing feelings,
then, please, watch Faux "News".
Hey, that's clever. Faux means fake but also sounds like the word Fox. So, you substituted one for the other. I get it. That really is clever.
But, hold onto that cleverness lest others plagiarize it. Next thing you know, every liberal moron who can type will start using your "Faux News" phrase ad nauseum. It may even begin to substitute for actual rational thought someday. Instead of offering a rational, logical, and reasonable response, folks may just start saying "Faux News". That would be horrible, don't you think? It would reduce intelligent discussion to cheap slogans and phrases like "The truth is liberally biased".
So, keep an eye out for your clever little phrase. Make sure no one else steals it. Keep it for yourself.
That really is clever though. I can't stop chuckling at that one. Faux News. Ha! That is clever. Whew. You're a clever guy, Wes.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 07:59 AM
Uh oh, Wes, it looks like your cleverness is already being copied. Leroy, is using it now. I fear my prediction is turning into reality. Soon, every liberal moron who can type on a keyboard will start using your "Faux News" phrase.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 08:04 AM
Hey karla,I hate liberals because they support the terrorist over Americans,dumb-ass.Hang your white flag today like all the other lowlife liberals.Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 08:16 AM
We can always depend on Keith and others like him to drag any discussion into the gutter with their childish name calling. Those who accuse the media of liberal bias apparently forget the way the Washington Post beat the whitewater dead horse for years. Or the way the New York Times beat the drums for Bush's invasion of Iraq. Or how the media in the 2000 campaign relentlessly ridiculed Al Gore for his "sighs" while never challenging Bush's outrageous misstatements.Posted by Romulus on September 11, 2007 09:00 AM
I've been reading postings on this website for months. The term "faux News" has been around for months, and more. It's shorter than " Right-Wingnut, Reactionary, Religious-Nut-Cult Republican Propaganda Machine"; but it does convey the message quite well.
Now you have really given us all a good belly laugh, when you make reference to "intelligent discussion" - supposedly with a Republican spokes-person. That's worth a spot on the old HEE-HAW!.Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 09:07 AM
Too many graduates of journalism schools want to change the world. They are dominated by liberal activists, many with a socialist bent. The DP is a better example locally, but still nothing compared to the NY Times or LA Times. Where did the liberal/socialist George Soros moveon.org crowd go to place their treasonous and infamous "Gen. Betray Us" ad? They didn't go to Foxnews, The Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily.
Americans are on to this conspicuous liberal bias. That's one big reason why their circulation, readership, ad revenues, profits and physical size are forever shrinking. And that's whay their layoffs are booming.Posted by Hank on September 11, 2007 09:19 AM
Keith any time you feel like serving your eviction notices in person let me know and bring it on.
I used to have a list of the very few multinational corporations that control the vast majority of the "media" including internet resources in this country and I'd challenge the wingnuts to point out which of those corporations had a liberal bias. I never ever got a straight answer from any wingnut.
I take no credit for Faux News. It is used to characterize Jon Stewart's comedy show and is a common term in the blogosphere for the hilarious crap that is put out by the Republican News Network.
If the RMN was really anti-Republican it would show real pictures of coffins and the destruction in Iraq instead of sanitizing it for American consumption.
My question is why is it that Republicans always come across as infantile whiners? For pretending to be manly men they sure have a lot of paranoid insecurity fears.
Posted by wES on September 11, 2007 09:43 AM
Wes is right. Fox (faux?) News is a right leaning news media station. Most news media outlets are also right leaning. I can list them, watch...
Fox. Wait, already mentioned that one.
Hannity. Wait, he's part of Fox.
OReilly. Oops, same problem.
Rush. There, that's a good one.
Coulter. Wait, she's not affiliated.
Help me out here Wes... What were all those non left leaning news stations again???Posted by KW on September 11, 2007 10:04 AM
Old Grouch drooled:
"The term "faux News" has been around for months, and more."
"I take no credit for Faux News."
Get out! Wes didn't invent the phrase? I'm shocked. Because I have never heard of that phrase before. Most liberals rarely even mention Fox News. Have you guys ever posted on Daily Kos? They never mention Fox News let alone the extremely clever Faux News.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:20 AM
If any media organization doesn't pander to Moveon.org and their shepples (like wes, truth, davis, og, etc), and actually attempts to paint a true picture of a news story without the lefties pre-approval, the are branded pro-republican or right wing.
Hell, I've even seen MSNBC called a right wing puppet when it didn't agree with the clowns I mentioned above, and they're so left wing they make Moveon.org seemed middle of the road.
The lefties just like things presented in a manner that supports their own positions, irrespective of the truth. In their sanctimonious assertions of superior moral and ethical required actions they reject and attack anything in disagreement, including the truth.
Read them with amusement because all they provide is comic relief through their pontifications of moral certainties and absolutes. Consider them of the same ilk, though amateur, as wannbe Paul Campos'.They bring no constructive debate to a public forum in search of finding solutions, just self aggrandizement through, as og states, fatuous flatulence.
They are as bad coming from the left as keith, an american, etc. are coming from the right.
There are a few good debaters from the right and the left still hanging around this forum, but those who think like those above have started dominating and destroying this board.Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:29 AM
"Help me out here Wes... What were all those non left leaning news stations again???"
Here ya go.
ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, just to name a few.Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 10:38 AM
Definitely add GK to the post of 10:29..."it's" so far left it makes Moveon. org look middle of the road. "It's" to such an extreme as least balance is provided for AN American who comes from so far on the right he makes Limbaugh seem middle of the road.Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:44 AM
I knew it all along: there is a physical difference between libs and cons.Posted by Sheila on September 11, 2007 10:46 AM
GK - You're joking, right?
How many left examples do you want? I'm having a special today, 4 for $20, cash only.Posted by KW on September 11, 2007 10:49 AM
Sheila, dear...you skipped some of the more relevant points.."As to the more intriguing question of which comes first, the patterns in neuron activity or the political orientation, Amodio is reluctant to hazard a guess."Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:53 AM
10:29 AM anonymous,
Odd posting. Few, if any, "liberals" here ever consider their position to be either of, or antithetical to, what you refer to as "superior moral and ethical required actions", much less "attack . . . the truth". Indeed, the liberals on this website are the ones who usually DEMAND the truth, and evidence for the insistent statements of "superior moral and ethical " positions claimed by the Republicans/"conservatives".
Just what is your idea of "consturctive debate" sir? Or is that just a way of saying you can't deal with the ideas; and must always find yourself - and the other anynomous writers - bowed down before, as being yourselves of "superior" abilities and positions?
We may use screen names, sir; but we at least are identifiable, and trackable. Which contributes far more to the basics of "constructive debate" than anything prsented anonymously, as in your letter.
Or is it just a matter of lacking the intestinal fortitude to debate in the first place; and remaining anonymous because of it?Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 10:54 AM
ANONYMOUS: actually, I didn't skip over anything. :-) So, I'm not sure what is your point.
Anyway.... how are all you angry children today?
KW: Obviously they are so anti American they can't even see how other then Fox news there is no "fair" TV. It's too bad that patriotism isn't politically correct anymore.Posted by Anti Lib on September 11, 2007 11:01 AM
Here's another link that shows the difference between libs and cons: http://www.zombietime.com/9-11_truth_march_power_to_peaceful/
I think you are reaching a little afar of the mainstream liberal thought when you use your "Zombietime" pictorial to make a point.
It's too bad that we have so much confrontation from both sides tying to demean the other when there are legitimate positions emanating from both the right and that could be discussed in a positive or constructive manner.
But, I would imagine that the respective party leaders, prefer us humble citizens to remain blind to the fact that they're both following essentially the same special interests while parroting sound bites that increases the schism between the respective party faithful.
It would be a shame to hold an elected party official's feet to the fire for ineffectiveness come election time.Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 11:20 AM
Correction to 11:20 Post
"both the right and that could be" SHOULD read; ...
"...both the right an left that could be..."
Sorry, I'm sitting in a meeting and typing in short bursts to make the others think I'm taking notes, and not just bored and playing on a public forum...Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 11:25 AM
I threw that link out there as an elbow in the liberals side. But, I'm beginning to wonder if the images I see of liberals protesting and the comments I read on this forum are not indicative of mainstream liberalism.
"But, I would imagine that the respective party leaders, prefer us humble citizens to remain blind to the fact that they're both following essentially the same special interests while parroting sound bites that increases the schism between the respective party faithful."
I'm not sure what special interests you are referring to. Yes, both sides cater to their special interests but those special interests are not the same. The differences between the two sides are so great that I don't know how much longer we can remain a united States of America.
By the way, what are you thoughts on the protesting going on in regards to the General's report? Do you think it's appropriate. Have you heard Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez's remarks to the General?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:42 AM
Where can I find "mainstream liberal thought"? Which blogs would you recommend for that? Do you feel the liberal posters on this forum are "mainstream"?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:46 AM
Me Joking? Not at all. Don't need any left examples. There are far more right examples.Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 11:51 AM
John2, don't be naive. Both parties leaders dance to the big global business interests, international influence and power brokers. They have little sub issue differences that they point at and try to make sheeple believes their different, but they all march to the same freakin" drum -power.
og, nice sanctimonious "sound bite".Posted by on September 11, 2007 11:55 AM
Little sub issue differences? One side despises capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution. Those aren't "sub issues".Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:01 PM
You're first question will have to wait -- people are becoming suspicious of my computer activity (ahh, it's nice to be the boss, they won't challenge - pity).
You're second question - I don't read liberal or conservative blogs so I have no reference for you. And yes, I do believe you have some fairly mainstream liberal thinkers on this blog. Old Grouch, Charles B, Sharon B, and a few others who will provide a point of reference and logical arguments supporting their positions.
You have a few on the right who present the same backing for their positions; momma y, KW, Dravor, darfor, and a few others.
You don't have to agree with any of them on either side, but appreciate the points they usually make from a non-dogmatic or emotional appeal.
Gotta run - I've been outed!Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 12:03 PM
Is this "mainstream liberal thought"? http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/87d0752b-a17e-4b7b-b3a9-ab6761f7b565
That moron accused our General of lying.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:06 PM
Just as I thought, mongoose. If Old Grouch, Sharon B. and Charles B. are "mainstream liberal thought", then mainstream liberal thought is a scary thing.
Is this "mainstream liberal thought"? : http://www.bwog.net/index.php?page=post&article_id=2265Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:12 PM
john2, "...capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution."
Most agree that capitalism, regulated is good. That's why honest (or relatively honest) business flourishes and the Enron's of the world collapse.
Christianity is a personal belief system. Some Christians want laws forcing everyone to live under their religious tenants -- not much different than the Islamic radicals want everyone to live under Sharia Law. Not much different between the two wannabe Theocracies except for their followers.
Religion, including Christianity belongs in the home, church and lifestyle of the people accepting it - not forced down everyone else's throat. And, I'm a Christian - Christ taught spread the Word and teach; not, institute laws and make them followers.
Constitution - depends on interpretation.
On all of these johnnie boy, you are not a thinking conservative, but a dogmatic "by God, that's the way it's always been, so it's good enough for me" so everyone toe my line based on my narrow minded interpretation.
Ya got a brain, man...use it for analytical thought and not just providing a framework to apply to everything around you in a selfish, bigoted manner.Posted by on September 11, 2007 12:21 PM
And lefties are accused of being conspiracy buffs. RMN is about as liberal biased as Rush Limbaugh. This is the newspaper that regularly prints Brian Stinkeys letters. When the RMN and the Post start printing articles on the waste and fraud involved with the Iraq occupation then I will consider the possibility that they are allowing liberal themes into their papers.
This thread reminds me a little kids who try to hold their breath to get what they want. "Daddy we don't want to hear about reality. We want to have the news slanted and filtered so we don't have to hear what utter and complete failures the Republicans have been at governing this country for the last 12 years. Make the bad papers stop printing all those horrid stories about homo-bashing gay Republicans. We want to hear good stories about how wonderful this endless war is how we're the good guys even when we torture".
No wonder Righties think reality has a liberal bias.Posted by Wes on September 11, 2007 12:22 PM
You're baiting into getting in trouble, my friend!
I don't see any of the people I mentioned above, nor people like them getting involved in the ruckus you provided as an example -- it's almost as "non mainstream" as your "Zombietime".
To you think that this is representative of modern conservatives...Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 12:26 PM
Okay, 12:21 (why do I have to refer to you as a time? pick a name),
Let's start with this:
"Most agree that capitalism, regulated is good. That's why honest (or relatively honest) business flourishes and the Enron's of the world collapse."
Show me your liberal thought process and explain that statement because my unthinking conservative brain cannot grasp it. How did regulation cause Enron to collapse?
"Some Christians want laws forcing everyone to live under their religious tenants -- not much different than the Islamic radicals want everyone to live under Sharia Law."
Can you be specific? Which religious laws are being forced on us?
"Constitution - depends on interpretation."
How about the English interpretation. Let's start with the 10th Amendment: How many liberals here support the 10th Amendment?
By the way, is this mainstream liberal thought: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5305897362296506063
I rest my case of wes, the self righteous looney left. He wouldn't know reality if he was hit over the head with it. Go back to your Moveon.org shrine, little wessy, and promise to to better the next time they allow you internet access.
If the RMN, DP - the 2 liberal rags of this town won't emphasis the minute to prove a point of Moveon.org and their sheeple (like little wessy) their part of Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy.
What a bunch of freakin' babies.Posted by on September 11, 2007 12:33 PM
i'll be rite back, i soiled meself again....worse i forgot to waer my Depends today so dis might take me a while to cleanup.An American wood you hep me?Posted by keith on September 11, 2007 12:37 PM
"I don't see any of the people I mentioned above, nor people like them getting involved in the ruckus you provided as an example -- it's almost as "non mainstream" as your "Zombietime"."
I'm not so sure about that. Charles B. believes the best way to fight the spread of Islam is for the entire population of America to convert to atheism. Here's what that would actually accomplish in New York City: http://urbaninfidel.blogspot.com/2007/09/muslim-day-parade.html#linksPosted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:41 PM
jonnie2, you sure pick extreme reports and videos to lump all liberals into. You're a narrow minded as wessy boy but from the other side!
"Which religious laws are being forced on us"
Abortions, gay marriage, homosexuality, pornography (gay or straight), for a START. These are all based on your religious bigotry and alleged superior moral codes. You want laws prohibiting them based on your religion. Religious laws of control = Theocracratical control.
"How did regulation cause Enron to collapse"
Accurate financial accounting and audits of public companies -- by regulation of numerous federal and state laws. Their financial house of cards fell.
Speaking of the Constitution, johnnie boy, where does it prohibit gay marriage, pornography...
Where doe it prohibit child labor in corporate manufacturing sweat shops...strike that, that's part of REGULATING business and capitalism.
Fed up with extremes and bigotsPosted by on September 11, 2007 12:45 PM
So what else is new? 90% of them vote Democratic and most are lying bleeding heart liberals like Dan Rather and the other 60 Minutes clan on Sundays. It shoud be called 60 lies a minute instead. Mike Wallce looks like death warmed over.
I'm sure glad they have Sharon B. is on their side. People like her are a God send for the Right and she is just one of millions.
They only show the nation what the lying left has done to the sensibilities of the average person who wishes to be willfully blind to the truth. This is a sad period in the history of our once great nation.Posted by No Blinders on September 11, 2007 12:53 PM
"Abortions, gay marriage, homosexuality, pornography (gay or straight), for a START."
Abortion is not a religious issue. Neither is gay marriage. By the way, which major Democrat presidential candidates support gay marriage?
"Accurate financial accounting and audits of public companies -- by regulation of numerous federal and state laws. Their financial house of cards fell."
Try again. Regulation did not bring down Enron; capitalism did.
"Speaking of the Constitution, johnnie boy, where does it prohibit gay marriage, pornography..."
It doesn't. Therefore, what? Therefore, it should be left to the States to decide.
"Where doe it prohibit child labor in corporate manufacturing sweat shops...strike that, that's part of REGULATING business and capitalism."
So, do you agree that child labor laws should be left to the States?
By the way, is this mainstream liberal thought: http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/09/keith_olbermann_61.php
Grasping extreme examples doesn't substantiate your point of view to me. Just like me pointing out the Aryan Nations isn't indicative of all Conservatives, your selected videos and news stories of extremes in both the liberal side of politics and Muslims doesn't validate your apparent intense dislike of anything not agreeing with you other than your perception of the normal from these people. I happen to believe that you are picking exceptions, not the general rule.
If you're wondering where I'm coming from out of fear that I'm pushing a liberal agenda, I'm not. I can best be described as a fiscally conservative leaning libertarian who understand the need for some social intervention by the government to ensure a truly free and prospering society. I also believe that the true separation between any religion (including atheism) and the state should be rigidly observed.Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 12:58 PM
Lunch is over, I've got to pay attention to the rest of the meeting since I'm announcing the decision they've been fighting over! (I cheat - my mind was made up after touring the factory and talking to the actual workers yesterday!)
Probably won't be able to get back today as my plane leaves here in a couple of hours to head home to Denver. I'll see if I have wifi on the plane - new charter company I'm not familiar with yet.
Enjoyed it! Hope to catch you again down the road.Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 01:09 PM
I posted links of war protesters, a member of Congress accusing a general of lying, an example of liberal free speech at a major university, and a major news personality accusing a conservative news organization as being worse than terrorists and the KKK. I could go on and on with this stuff. I'm not grasping. This stuff goes on everywhere.
You call Charles B., Old Grouch, and Sharon B. mainstream liberals? One is a caustic, bitter middle-aged man. Another is a crazy, bitter old man. And, the last one is just plain nutty. There can be no real debate with this type of liberal mainstream thought. The real debate is between libertarianism and conservatism.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:09 PM
While we all have to make judgments pertaining to our interaction with the world around us, it's best not to be too judgmental of people without allowing for adjustments and refinements of those opinions in the future. One of those people who profiled may throw out a gem of an idea among everything else -- it would a shame to miss it due to a prematurely closed and locked mind.
Ciao --Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 01:15 PM
My mind is far from locked.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:20 PM
"You have a few on the right who present the same backing for their positions; momma y, KW, Dravor, darfor, and a few others.
You don't have to agree with any of them on either side, but appreciate the points they usually make from a non-dogmatic or emotional appeal."
I see you didn't include John in this category even though he comes off from the right. Does this mean you think he comes across as being dogmatic or emotional?
And I'm hurt you forgot me! lolPosted by CA on September 11, 2007 01:23 PM
johnnie boy2, "My mind is far from locked."
R i i g h t! Your little noggin' is more locked up than the Queen's chastity belt while the hubby King is off slaying the infidels in the name of Christianity...Posted by on September 11, 2007 01:27 PM
Is that your answer to my questions to you about the Constitution?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:33 PM
johnnie boy2, right -- it is constitutionally mandated that you keep you little noggin' locked up and view the world in your bigoted manner. That explains a lot -- you don't want to violate the constitution!
I's got to put on my uni and report to work. You keep working at subjugating the world to Christian views of morals and whatever. You's definitely great at it and fun to laugh at. You and Wes make a good comic relief team.Posted by on September 11, 2007 01:40 PM
The trouble with attempts to "debate" John 2, lies in the simple fact that any respopnse to him must necessarily be put in terms of agreement with the terms of HIS current moment's expression of HIS momentary beliefs and belief-system.
Since these are always as fluid as a running stream - and as the philosopher, Heraclitus, stated several millenia ago: "You never step into the same river twice." - there is never a fixed reference point, or fixed point of any kind, from which to begin discussion.
One example: Back a while ago, John 2 asked what actions taken, or positions held, against gay people were matters of "prejudice". There were answers, some of which listed a number ways in which "prejudice" was shown, applied, or present. Those postings were, of course, relying upon the fixed point of reference that comes from the dictionary definition of the word. And, they made the mistake of thinking that their replies would be received accordingly.
On the contrary, however. John 2 simply stated that none of the matters brought up were, FOR HIM, "prejudice", or "prejudicial"; since - again FOR HIM - these were merely matters that were completely in accord with HIS CURRENT belief-system as being perfectly right and proper ways to treat gay people; and those posting from the fixed point of reference - the dictionary definition of the word "rejudice" - had FOR JOHN 2 ,and IN JOHN 2's opinion - not "answered his questions at all", since they weren't in accord with HIS THEN CURRENT BELIEFS.
Additionally, he is both tiring and tiresome by way of asking continuous rhetorical questions of the same kind, always based upon what JOHN 2 wants to have agreed with, according to HIS momentary, and fluctuating belief-system. at the time of asking.
And, I need not dwell upon his ugly misogyny, and utterly insulting approach to the ladies, as these are evident from the beginning of his postings.
But, if you want to waste the time, effort, and energy to keep him satisfied: Have at it! It will add to the fun, and amusement, of the forum.Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 01:41 PM
How am I bigoted?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:43 PM
Hm, one accuses me of having a locked mind and the other says my belief system fluctuates. So, which is it? Which of my stated beliefs have "fluctuated" on this forum?
By the way, Old Grouch, not being in favor of tougher "hate crime laws" for gays does not make me "anti-gay". I've said numerous times I have no problem with gay folks. There is no conflict of positions there.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:51 PM
"I posted links of war protesters, a member of Congress accusing a general of lying, an example of liberal free speech at a major university, and a major news personality accusing a conservative news organization as being worse than terrorists and the KKK. I could go on and on with this stuff. I'm not grasping. This stuff goes on everywhere."
There's far more of it coming from the right.Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 02:18 PM
I agree with you that it's frustrating trying to debate with John 2. He reminds me of an investigative reporter who's already made up his mind as to what he wants to find and report. He then couches his questions and quoting in such a manner and context to "validate" his report.
I remember him discussing gay marriage with a few people a couple of weeks ago. No matter what was said if it didn't fit his frame of reference he rejected it as not applicable.
Look at the extremes he selected in his reports of public activity to lump all liberals into a category of irresponsible and intrusive airheads. He further stated in a subsequent post that this "stuff goes on everywhere", as if proving it to be the norm, not the exception. It's the media attention getting activity that is reported -- as are marches by the KKK or Aryan Nation "conservatives" and others of the extreme right.
I'm a conservative (albeit not a Bush supporter -- had to clarify before the guns are leveled) and find myself at a quandary when conservative values and thought become so lock stepped and oft-times illogical, if not irrational, in an attempt to justify a point of philosophical reference that only exists because of dogma or tradition, rather than the application of conservative principles to our ever evolving societal environment.
By the way, Old Grouch, away from John II for the moment. Some of you have been waiting for a new post from Trinity in Iraq.
As a little background to explain what I'm about to say; Trinity, mongoose, Krait 2 and myself were all members of the same SOG Teams in Vietnam at one time or the other. We've all stayed close after the service (mongoose and Trinity even more so as mongoose married Trinity's sister -- closest he came to death when he first stated wooing her!). I coaxed Trinity into participating in the forum and he brought in mongoose. We're still trying to get more of Krait 2's involvement, but he travels extensively and lives in New York.
Anyway, back to a post from Trinity: I was talking to him by his satellite phone yesterday and he was explaining that he was preparing a post stating that he was finding it a lot more peaceful since he hadn't been shot at since returning. Just then they were attacked and he terminated the call. When he called back a few hours later he said he would have to rethink and rewrite the post and try to get online later.
So, he does intend to post occasionally, and I believe you'll find him fairly honest when he does so.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 02:21 PM
I've got wifi for now, see how long it lasts. You misunderstood me when you said "one accuses me of having a locked mind.."
My reference was not to insinuate that you have a locked mind per se; but, since you had already profiled and categorized the people you mentioned, it would be wrong not to have an open mind while debating them.
Again, you don't have to agree with anything they say, but you should evaluate what they are saying and not just reject it based on previous categorizations. In other words, a cautionary admonition to not fall into the trap of a closed or locked mind...
You're telling tales out of school. Drinks are on you tonight! I'll call when we land -- Outback? Wives and dinner?Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 02:37 PM
"I remember him discussing gay marriage with a few people a couple of weeks ago. No matter what was said if it didn't fit his frame of reference he rejected it as not applicable."
Give me a break, darfor. How about an example? I remember that thread. It consisted of a gay guy, thomas I believe, calling me anti-gay because I opposed same-sex couples adopting children. I also stated that marriage (same sex or not) should not be messed with by the government. The only thing that concerns the government is the contract that is signed by all those entering into the pact.
For that position, Old Grouch and thomas went on and on with long drawn out, sappy posts about love and bigotry that did not address the points I was making.
As for being a frustrating debate opponent, I'm proud of that. As for the links I posted, that was just for fun in a boring thread.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 02:41 PM
I've been posting here for about nine months now. I've been debating the same people for most of that time. My mind is always open. But, I've read enough of the postings of Old Grouch, Charles B., Sharon B., and Truth to know their positions on most subjects now. I always debate their points. They almost always ignore mine.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 02:47 PM
"...a member of Congress accusing a general of lying..." I watched a lot of the live feed of his congressional presentation. I also saw some members of the congress praise him for being honest and candid in his testimony that didn't fit within the Bush desired "rosy scenario." And I saw Bush supporters praise him as well.
Consider the source of who called him a liar. She's a firebrand who makes waves and throws insults at anyone not agreeing with her preconceived concept of the truth. Kinda reminds you of some of our participants in this forum representing both conservative and liberal ideologies....
She has the right to speak freely. You have the right to take umbrage at the content. I'm sure that the general was expecting at least that, if not worse, before he appeared. I'm also sure that he has more substantial and concrete things to worry about than a liberal firebrand throwing an insult in his direction.Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 02:53 PM
I never questioned anyone's right to speak freely, mongoose.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 02:56 PM
Turn on your satellite phone if you get this message and it won't interfere with the avionics. I keep getting sent to voice mail.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 03:03 PM
You can demonstrate your honesty and openness which Old Grouched referred to as being evasive by answering a couple of questions directly from the previous discussions regarding same sex marriage. You never got around to answering them before.
If a heterosexual couple get married in a civil, not religious ceremony, do you recognize that as a MARRIAGE?
You stated you were open to same sex couples having a civil ceremony and the same rights accorded to heterosexual couples, with the exception of children. Would you recognize the results of such a civil ceremony to be a MARRIAGE?
Only two words need be given; one word, either yes or no, for the first question. And, one word, either a yes or no for the second question.Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 03:03 PM
"I never questioned anyone's right to speak freely, mongoose."
The what was the point to made by specifically complaining about the Congresswoman demonstrating that she doesn't have enough decorum to at least be civil in disagreement; but, rather, demonstrated that she chose a brash attack mode when not confronted by an adversarial opponent? Again, kinda reminds you of some of our neighbors from both the right and left on this forum.
If you want to ridicule elected officials for making an horse's ass out of themselves, you'll be typing all night and covering members of both parties.Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 03:14 PM
You have to clarify your question before admonishing me to give one word answers.
You seem to be hung up on the semantics of the contract. Yes, I'll call it a marriage as long as they don't adopt children into their pact.
My overall position is that marriage should be separate from government outside of any contracts that have been signed by the couples. I don't care if you call it a marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 03:16 PM
I'm glad we can both agree that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez made a "horse's ass" out of herself. I wonder who else on this forum agrees with us.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 03:19 PM
Thank you, sir. A very direct answer. While I don't agree with your position regarding children as I'm personally aware of same sex parents raising children to be heterosexuals and "normal"; I'll assume those to be anecdotal and not proof positive.
I believe if given the choice between institutional care and a same sex couple there isn't any question as to where they'll be better off.
I do agree with many of the studies I have read that conclude that children have a better balance when you have both a female and male parent raising them. Most of those studies were done in the context of divorce and the ramification of single parents being responsible for their development. I'm not aware of any non-religious sponsored studies addressing the situation of same sex parents.
I guess we can agree to disagree to a certain extent in this area and move on.
The pilot says were about to move into some rough weather and he is shutting nonessential electronics in favor avionics. So, I'm off the forum for at least an hour or so.
Again, enjoyed the exchange - hope to catch you at a later date.Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 03:30 PM
John Impotent Idiot ejaculated "One side despises capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution." What a well-supported argument, you gutless chimp-sucking maggot. No wonder you speak for a dwindling minority of scum.Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:45 PM
I remember Krait 2 discussing the pullout of Iraq and the resulting deaths similar to Vietnam. That's still a raging debate here can you get him back on to talk more about it? I don't know what to believe outside of we're getting a lot of American soldiers killed, 9 more in the paper today.Posted by CA on September 11, 2007 03:47 PM
"John Impotent Idiot ejaculated "One side despises capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution." What a well-supported argument, you gutless chimp-sucking maggot. No wonder you speak for a dwindling minority of scum."
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:45 PM
Ahhh, another articulate representative from the liberals showing their superior intellect and constructive arguments.
og; this must be representative of what you were referring to when you quipped; "...the liberals on this website are the ones who usually DEMAND the truth, and evidence for the insistent statements of "superior moral and ethical " positions claimed by the Republicans/"conservatives".
I can readily see your point...Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:52 PM
Old Grouch, Charles B., and Sharon B., have been declared "mainstream liberal thought".
Ask them their thoughts on capitalism.
Ask them their thoughts on Christianity.
Ask them their thoughts on the Constitution.
They hate capitalism. They bash Christianity every chance they get; and Old Grouch is a Christian! And they favor extra-constitutional programs. Sharon B. at what point suggest we "go beyond the Constitution". Old Grouch says it's an old document that needs to be reinterpreted.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 04:12 PM
Krait 2 is a litigator and investigator for Amnesty International. He's currently somewhere in the Sudan and not expected back for at least another month. His assignment to this region has been ongoing for a couple of years and he relishes it.
He's black and speaks the language. So he quite often dresses the part of a local and disappears for a while in order to do his thing. I seriously doubt he carries a computer or is interested in what's going on here.
So don't expect back in the near future.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 04:17 PM
I think Steven Corbet (sp) said "truth has a liberal bias." Maybe it was "facts have a liberal bias"
either way, it hit the mark.
Most of us do not explain ourselves to John II, how we think about capitalism, socialism etc. We just defend one program or discuss a change in the country and he, cape flying, makes the mental leap all by himself.
If we do not like a specific Christian behavior, say passing laws to outlaw inter-racial marriage, or keeping sodomy illegal, we are against Christianity, if we question it, I guess he thinks we want to destroy it.
Not so john tutu, is your tutu pink?
God that was funny last night, you running around double posting about code pink.
On the Constitution, he thinks only we nutty lefties have any different interpretation of it. We argue what "general welfare" means, how the 2nd was written and what folks think of it today.
I pretty much know who is left or right here, but how much they lean is hard to tell.
John II does want one thing though, he wants some kind of revolution, some taking to the streets, or however he puts it.
His thinly veiled idea that our country can not survive (check his 11:42) references tells me that he is bored and needs some excitement in his life.
No revolution John II, just people trying not to fight in the streets. But if they do, I hope they pick your street, not mine.Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 04:18 PM
"Give me a break, darfor. How about an example?"
You and mongoose already discussed two of the examples I was thinking of in the definition of a civil ceremony for gay couples( you skirted the issue a few times), and the situation of a gay couple adopting children.
I also seem to remember you off handily rejected laws regarding equal protection for gays in situations like renting or jobs. You stated that you didn't view those as anti-gay defeats in congress. Or, stated differently, you don't see the need to extend protection ensuring fair treatment of gays as being necessary -- being in agreement to deny equal protection under the laws is the same as being anti-gay.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 04:29 PM
"John II does want one thing though, he wants some kind of revolution, some taking to the streets, or however he puts it."
He just wants to either lock up in reeducation camps all gays and "nutty old women" and anybody else who doesn't accept his christian values as being the only correct values; or, line them up and shoot them. Of course, I may be wrong at that last line em' up comment since he regularly gos to the gun range, he may prefer moving targets.Posted by on September 11, 2007 04:49 PM
I can run and dodge pretty darn fast, I can also shoot back.Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 05:05 PM
"Or, stated differently, you don't see the need to extend protection ensuring fair treatment of gays as being necessary -- being in agreement to deny equal protection under the laws is the same as being anti-gay."
I realize that's the way many on the left prefer to characterize people: If you don't agree with my law proposal, you are a bigot, a racist, prejudiced, insensitive, homophobic, etc.
What do you mean by "extend" protection? That sounds like some are more equal than others. I oppose hate crime laws period. That doesn't make me "anti-gay". If you want to toughen crime laws, toughen them across the board for everyone, not just a few specific groups.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 05:15 PM
"He just wants to either lock up in reeducation camps all gays and "nutty old women" and anybody else who doesn't accept his christian values as being the only correct values; or, line them up and shoot them."
What do you base that charge on? When have I ever admonished anyone about Christian values? It would help if you provided a quote of mine so I could see what you're talking about. You may have me confused with someone else. I rarely discuss Christian values on this forum.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 05:21 PM
"What do you mean by "extend" protection?"
I'm a conservative and I understand that to mean that no one is be discriminated against because they are different than someone else. Most laws currently delineate that no one shall be discriminated against because of race, age, religion or gender (with exceptions based on specific situations - i.e., no men in a woman's health spa, etc.).
This leaves a class in our society not covered; homosexuals and/or transsexuals. I believe they are just as worthy of equal protection as anyone else to not be discriminated against because they are "different".
And, I'm totally in agreement with you that hate crime laws are nothing more than feel good legislation that doesn't deter nor better enforce laws against transgressions against individuals. Assault is assault; murder is murder -- essentially, a transgression by one is a transgression regardless of individuality. These laws are oft-times abused by prosecutors to reinforce weaker cases just because of a race or religious difference between perpetrators and victims.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 06:00 PM
"Most laws currently delineate that no one shall be discriminated against because of race, age, religion or gender (with exceptions based on specific situations - i.e., no men in a woman's health spa, etc.)."
In that case, I have no problem adding "sexual orientation" to the list.
But, how far are we going to take this discrimination concept? We all discriminate on based on something. Otherwise, we're just making random, irrational decisions. Can we discriminate against dumb people? Ugly people? Fat people? Red-headed people? Skinny people? If a 300 lb. woman is denied a job as a swimsuit model, does she have a right to sue? Or will job interviews be reduced to a random draw from the hat? Uh oh, luck discrimination. Will transsexuals now demand a third bathroom for transsexuals/transgendered? It's a slippery slope. I'm inclined to allow people to choose who and who not to associate with.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 06:14 PM
Sharon B. mumbled:
"On the Constitution, he thinks only we nutty lefties have any different interpretation of it. We argue what "general welfare" means, how the 2nd was written and what folks think of it today."
Why do you argue what "general Welfare" means? Don't you believe the fathers of the Constitution defined what "general Welfare" meant? They didn't leave it to half-drugged nut-cases to define the term. They specifically enumerated the powers of the federal government. What do you say about the "2nd". What do you think of it?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 06:36 PM
"Will transsexuals now demand a third bathroom for transsexuals/transgendered?"
They are already getting them. Many universities and other public institutions have already installed such facilities. The Aurora police department has also installed Unisex, one stall restrooms due to their transgendered cop. It's not necessarily to be PC, but because heterosexual males and females feel uncomfortable using the same multi facilities.
Everybody has the right of free association. But, you don't have the right to deny housing or jobs (unless specific qualifications are set for obvious safety or ability reasons) just because they are different. And realistically, if you're an employer with multiple candidates you are going to select the one whom you feel will fit into the position the best in both ability and team effectiveness.
You just don't have the right to post the job opening for just, in example, white anglo saxon protestants only need apply. Nor can you fire an employee doing a good job just because find out later that he/she is a Wicca follower.
The same protections should apply to everyone; not just those that are "acceptable" due to traditions.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 06:43 PM
"You just don't have the right to post the job opening for just, in example, white anglo saxon protestants only need apply. Nor can you fire an employee doing a good job just because find out later that he/she is a Wicca follower."
Just to play devil's advocate...
If I own a company, why can't I hire only white anglo saxons? It would seem that I only hurt myself by limiting the available pool of job applicants. The same goes for firing Wiccans doing a good job. If a Wiccan is doing a good job and I fire her, am I not hurting my own business?
These types of arguments remind of Marge Schott, former owner of the Cincinnati Reds baseball team. She was a racist. But, she also employed and paid blacks a very high salary. Why? Because the desire for profit forced her to hire the best qualified employees. If she decided to fire a good baseball player simply because he was black, she would most likely suffer financially for such a poor decision.
There's a great story about slaves in and Irish-Americans that I need to find. It showed that slaves were often held back from dangerous work because they were worth more than the Irish.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 07:12 PM
Here's the link to that slave/Irish story I mentioned. It was quoted in a book by black economist, Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite modern writers.
I'd provide the actual excerpt but Google won't let me grab the text.
John II mumble mumble, when I say we argue about the Constitution, I mean the royal we.
As in all of us. We all. We all just barely mention the general welfare clause or 2nd amendment and you assume we want to destroy the Constitution entirely.
some people actually have discussions about general welfare being more then roads and bridges. I won`t tell you what I think of those issues.
As a half-drugged nut case, I just can`t remember.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 07:37 PM
"Just to play devil's advocate...If I own a company, why can't I hire only white anglo saxons?"
Just for me to play devil's advocate...
Get the constitution and laws changed and nobody will say a thing to you. As it stands now the equality clause of the constitution, and further statute clarifications, stand in your way of such action. I'm sure that you could get a lot of support from various groups like the KKK, Aryan Race Org., etc...just to play devil's advocate, of course.
You move beyond the scope of freedom of association and into bigotry, racism, etc., when you deny opportunity to anyone based on how they were born genetically or chemically different than others -- now you're denying equality for all.
I must have missed part of your post regarding Sharon B...besides calling her a "nutty old woman", did you call her "half-drugged". Either way you seem to have categorized and pigeon-holed her in personal reference locker never to be modified or reconsidered.
That may be part of the reason "liberals" ignore your arguments as they see a perceived bias that can't be dealt with regardless of the underlying argument.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 08:38 PM
Your last post to me was a bit nonsensical and way too caustic. I tried to engage you as an intellectual. You disappoint me.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:02 PM
You can play devil's advocate and postulate scenarios, but your debate opponent can't. That's more than a little disappointing -- that's insulting.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 09:11 PM
Hey guys, pull your big girl's panties on and grow up!
You had a good repartee going before John2 got hurt feelings when darfor tossed the same absurd arguments back at him as "a devil's advocate." Interesting back and forth sans ad hominem attacks are a rare pleasure in this forum.Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:17 PM
You never answered my questions. I was just trying to engage you intellectually. Your response did not match my challenge.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:19 PM
No, 09:17..johnnie 2boy just got backed into a corner with his own logic, or lack of, tossed back at him. He's crying foul and licking his wounds. Typical of him on the rightwingnut position as he has to keep balance with the leftwingnuts like 03:45Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:25 PM
John II 6:36 post, well I thought you meant me. Is there another half drugged nut case posting for the RMN.?
Better not, this is my territory.Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 09:25 PM
What corner did I get backed into? Am I missing something? darfor completely sidestepped my questions. I wasn't even attacking him. I just wanted to get his feedback. His response still puzzles me.
I can quote numerous times that you've admitted your bizarre posts were the result of taking "Benadryl". Shall I?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:30 PM
"If I own a company, why can't I hire only white anglo saxons? It would seem that I only hurt myself by limiting the available pool of job applicants."
Yes you would be hurting yourself. As to why you can't: answered with: "...when you deny opportunity to anyone based on how they were born genetically or chemically different than others -- now you're denying equality for all." from post at 08:38 PM in response to your direct question.
"The same goes for firing Wiccans doing a good job. If a Wiccan is doing a good job and I fire her, am I not hurting my own business?"
Yes, you would be hurting yourself. Why you can't: answered with; "...no one shall be discriminated against because of race, age, religion" -- emphasize on religion, from post at 06:00 PM.Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:34 PM
Sorry for not labeling 0:934 PM. I was at another site using IE and returned to Mozilla for this forum -- must have dropped my handle in the transition.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 09:37 PM
Sharon - you go girl!
"Better not, this is my territory."
But I am trying to move up to your league!Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:39 PM
It's late and I have a business to run during the day as I'm not independently wealthy. So, good nite all.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 09:42 PM
Which specific laws are you referring to? Is it in the Constitution? If so, can you cite the specific section that says an employer cannot hire whomever he/she pleases based on whatever criteria he/she feels necessary?
Aside from the legal (or lack of) grounds, if we can acknowledge that an employer only hurts himself when he discriminates based on non-job factors, why should we stop him? I offered a few examples of how capitalism reduces the incentive to discriminate based on race. Have you nothing to say about that?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:44 PM
You can legally hire and fire anyone "...based on whatever criteria he/she feels necessary..." so long as it can't be shown to be due to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
My position is that sexual orientation should be included in this criteria for all federal, state and local laws which address this issue of equality.
There are exceptions as to application, but the courts have not honored all exceptions in an uniform manner; especially in the area company size. Lawsuits for discrimination have been successful for companies consisting of under ten employees. Individual circumstances and severity of action seems to bear weight in such instances.
Recommend you start here: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It can be viewed at (among other places, I personally use Nexus):Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 10:09 PM
Thanks for the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My problem with this is that I don't see this supported anywhere in the Constitution.
As I've asked before, aside from the legal (or lack of) grounds, why should we stop an employer from discrimination if it only serves to hurt the employer? This is not a question of whether or not racial/gender/sexual orientation discrimination is legal or morally wrong or not. It's simply a question about capitalism and the need to hire the best employees for the job. Do you agree or disagree that the profit motive reduces needless discrimination? And why should we prohibit an employer from hiring whomever he wants?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:21 PM
Sorry, meant to recommend that you also research all of the amendments, adjunct rulings and supplemental laws enacted in support of, and clarification of sections and interpretations pertaining to the act as all do bear on interpretation and enforcement.
The original argument for equality was drawn from the Declaration of Independence; ..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And, founded on the interpretation of the Preamble of the Constitution under the concept of "...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice..."
The concept of justice implies that in a nation founded on the concept that all men are created equal, all will have the equal opportunity to succeed or fail without concern for any discriminatory actions on the part of another.
Ensuring equality is a complex endeavor as there are many people who not only disagree with it, but actively seek to circumvent both the letter and spirit of the law.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 10:26 PM
I believe that I partially answered this in my subsequent post after yours. However, we are a republic where (supposedly) the will of the people can establish laws which support the interpretation of our constitution and enforce anyof it's provisions.
While some people disagree with the interpretation of a majority, there are provisions to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" in enacting laws if they do not harm the minority in order to ensure the "general welfare" of the majority.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 10:33 PM
I actually already searched the Constitution (and all amendments) and I can't find anything regarding the limitation of an employer's discrimination practices.
References to equality in the Declaration of Independence refer to equality in the eyes of the law, not equality in private employment.
Again, I'm trying to get your opinion outside of legal (or lack of) issues. If an employer hurts himself by limiting himself to a smaller subset of the labor pool, why do we need to stop him from hurting himself? Capitalism seems to solve this problem much better than any arbitrary laws.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:37 PM
"However, we are a republic where (supposedly) the will of the people can establish laws which support the interpretation of our constitution and enforce anyof it's provisions."
All I'm asking for is the actually section of the Constitution you are referring to. Yes, the Constitution says the words, "general Welfare". Is that what you are referring to? Do you believe that phrase was open-ended? Or do you agree with the Father of the Constitution that:
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- James MadisonPosted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:49 PM
"Capitalism seems to solve this problem..." Not everyone has your trust in raw capitalism acting in a fair an unbiased manner. Not all businesses operate in a non prejudicial. An example of such violations can be found at:
EEOC SETTLES RACIAL HIRING CASE AGAINST MILGARD WINDOWS FOR $3.37 MILLION
The lawsuit arose out of events in 1998, when Leigh Ann Ornelas was the person responsible for conducting initial interviews of job applicants at Milgard Windows' plant, then located in the Montebello area of Denver. The EEOC and Ms. Ornelas maintained that the then Plant Manager of the Montebello facility told Ms. Ornelas not to hire or refer black applicants for certain positions in the plant. Ms. Ornelas and the EEOC also have alleged that when Ms. Ornelas complained to various managers concerning these instructions, no action was taken against the Plant Manager and Ms. Ornelas was subjected to retaliatory harassment and eventually forced to resign. The EEOC also asserted that a statistical analysis of the job applications submitted to Milgard's Colorado facility since 1997 shows that Milgard hired significantly fewer African Americans and blacks than would be predicted based on the demographics of the areas where applicants lived.
Full report at: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-20-04a.html
When there is not a need for enforcement of equality we may be ready to operate without legal watchdogs in place. However, for now, many people operate based on their own prejudices and biases without regard to quality of employees as individuals beyond those factors.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 11:09 PM
"...do you agree with the Father of the Constitution..."
I'm only in a position to agree or not agree with the current interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court today.
If I disagree, I have to develop a case, with supporting legal arguments, to present to the Supreme Court in an attempt to establish a new interpretation. Otherwise, disagreeing would provide me no real benefit other than to have something of no relevant benefit to complain about.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- James Madison"
Is the basis of ongoing, never ending debate which if resolved, will only serve to allow one side of many viewpoints to say, "We're right!" It will serve as no legal precedent for or against the present interpretation of the Constitution and subsequent laws in place.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 11:22 PM
Your example failed to acknowledge points we already discussed. Did you not already admit that an employer's racial discrimination hurts the employer by limiting the employer's labor pool?
All you did was post a discrimination lawsuit. But, how does that answer my questions to you? If irrational racial discrimination hurts the employer, why not just let the employer hurt itself? Why prosecute the employer?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:31 PM
Because he has caused another harm through his "irrational racial discrimination", not just himself. That's what he will be punished for -- his tort. I posted a discrimination lawsuit to demonstrate that there are still racial bigots causing emotional and financial harm to others today, and that we have watchdogs to haul their bigoted attitudes into court in order to partially right the wrongs they inflicted on others through their actions.Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 11:39 PM
"I'm only in a position to agree or not agree with the current interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court today."
Okay. So, what is your interpretation of the Constitution. Cite the article and section that backs your position. You have not done that except for your vague utterance of "general Welfare".
I'm not attacking you or trying to make you look bad, darfor. But, I don't think I'm out of line in asking you to back up your legal claims with some kind of Constitutional evidence. If you have a position that differs from the Father of the Constitution, please state it cogently.Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:40 PM
But, darfor, there are many irrational decisions an employer can make that impacts more than just the employer. The employer could choose to discriminate against smart workers. This would also punish the company and it's employees. Shall we prosecute employers for bad business decisions?Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:47 PM
I'm not making any legal claims to have to back up. You're the one who wants to reject current laws based on your interpretation of not only the Constitution, but also of the interpretation of the works of the founding fathers.
"...trying to make you look bad, darfor." You're not; but you might consider looking in a mirror in regard to your circular arguments and dancing around answers not in agreement with your preconceived ideas.
I explained to you why the equality laws are in place and what one has to do to effect a change in those laws and the current interpretation of the Constitution by those who matter -- the CURRENT and historical Supreme Court who do/have set the interpretation and subsequent laws in place.
I didn't agree or disagree with the INTERPRETATION of the Madison quote; I only commented that regardless of how interpreted it will not change the current interpretation under which we are all required to live.
I don't have to practice under the interpretations of the founding fathers -- I have to practice under the current interpretation of the Constitution and any and all laws subsequent to that interpretation. If I disagree with any laws, or interpretation of the constitution, there are legal steps that have to be followed in order to change such laws or interpretation.
Different presidential candidates view the Constitution in different ways, ranging from Edwards who believes it mandates care from cradle to grave, to Paul who takes a very literal and restrictive view of the wording and interpretation. Perhaps you can find assistance in advocating your view by working to elect a candidate who shares that view.
Personally, I find that arguing the intent of the Founding Fathers to be counterproductive to actually functioning in our modern society legalistically. I'm not into the pseudo intellectual debate of the abstract which doesn't have direct and realistic application to today's society.
"My mind is far from locked"...Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:20 PM
You haven't convinced of your assertion. Show how it's not locked and is open to new facts and evidence that can possibly result in changes in your belief system.Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:07 AM
Oh, and since it is very late, please forgive any grammatical and/or spelling mistakes I may have made. Thank you and good night.
You obviously either don't read and understand answers, or, you cherry pick the absurd out of context points to "validate" nonsense.
"This would also punish the company and it's employees. Shall we prosecute employers for bad business decisions?"
No. Because he didn't discriminate against another based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
You have abused all concepts of logical and rational argument by taking absurd positions and presenting them as serious intellectual pursuit.
Add me to the list of those who believe debating you is a worthless endeavor. You have your mind set in concrete and use the most absurd, if not juvenile tactics to defend the indefensible.Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:16 AM
johnnie 2boy, you got spanked so many times by darfor in this thread. and you kept changing to whining about things that didn't fit. You were arguing about legally protected equal rights and you came back with
"there are many irrational decisions an employer can make that impacts more than just the employe"
Pathetic, it had nothing to do with protected equal rights
I'm just surprised he toyed with you as long as he did. I stayed up way past my bedtime watching you get spanked and it was worth it.
I just love watching narrow noogin' bigots get spanked and turned to chasing their own tails.Posted by on September 12, 2007 12:32 AM
"No. Because he didn't discriminate against another based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
You have still not explained why an employer needs to be held legally accountable for discriminating on those criteria. You have not shown the Constitutional reasoning and you have not shown any other reasoning besides a racism is bad because it's bad mentality.
"Add me to the list of those who believe debating you is a worthless endeavor. You have your mind set in concrete and use the most absurd, if not juvenile tactics to defend the indefensible."
I don't blame you for being frustrated. You have no cogent argument to make against my arguments. That has got to be frustrating. So, instead you look for a dismissive retreat out of an argument you have no idea how to defend.
Think on it some more, darfor. Perhaps, your buddies will offer better arguments for you to latch onto to tomorrow morning.Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:33 AM
"...self-inforcing mechanisms of capitalism in regards to irrational discrimination"
There are none. Demonstrate and prove to the contrary.Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:34 AM
I realize you really want to believe that darfor "spanked" me. But, where did he do so? He avoided direct questions. He failed to support his legal arguments with Constitutional evidence. He failed to even defend his position on non-legal grounds. In fact, he admitted the employer hurts himself by irrational discrimination. So, what was his winning argument? He had/has nothing. How disappointing. I wasn't even trying to debate him. I just wanted to hear his thoughts on the subject. Yet, he responded with caustic and nonsensical arguments. Sure, you can say he "spanked" me. But, the reality is he just embarrassed himself on this forum. He has zero argumentative skills. I honestly was not expecting him to fold this easy. Is there anyone else out there who can carry his torch?Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:42 AM
"There are none. Demonstrate and prove to the contrary."
Didn't I already do that? Haven't we already agreed that an employers irrational hiring/firing practices hurts his own business?
Now you're arguing to the contrary of a point you acknowledged earlier today?Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:48 AM
nice try johnnie 2boy to save face. You were the clown with circle arguments and fuzzy logic. darfur was just relating the laws and how their enforced and on what basis. your the noodlehead that wanted him to justify laws in place and to read the thoughts of what was intended by men dead and unable to explain what they meant. darfur wasn't arguing constitutional law fool, only the laws in place. he even said he wasn't interested in debating
"Personally, I find that arguing the intent of the Founding Fathers to be counterproductive to actually functioning in our modern society legalistically. I'm not into the pseudo intellectual debate of the abstract which doesn't have direct and realistic application to today's society."
Face it, johnnie 2boy, your just a narrow minded bigot who couldn't dance fast enough to support your bigoted views in front of someone who didn't take your bait to argue your nonsensical arguments.
PS put some ice on that red buttPosted by on September 12, 2007 12:52 AM
T here are none. Demonstrate and prove to the contrary."
Didn't I already do that? Haven't we already agreed that an employers irrational hiring/firing practices hurts his own business?
Now you're arguing to the contrary of a point you acknowledged earlier today?
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:48 AM
Assertion and assumption not substantiated by demonstrable fact. I conceded that it would probably hurt his business. However, there's always exceptions to what one would consider normal.
So once again, provide demonstrable facts and proof of your postulation. I'll try to check tomorrow for your grand exposition.Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:57 AM
Ha, okay 12:52, if you say so. I don't suppose you'd like to point out my circular arguments and fuzzy logic?
By the way, 12:52, were you the same anonymous coward that stated that Enron was brought down by regulations?Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 01:01 AM
"Assertion and assumption not substantiated by demonstrable fact. I conceded that it would probably hurt his business. However, there's always exceptions to what one would consider normal."
Huh? What the hell does that mean? If a company fires a good worker strictly because the worker was a Wiccan, the company loses out on a good worker. You already agreed to that. I have no idea what you're arguing now.
Yeah, hopefully, someone else will present a better argument tomorrow morning. I'm sure Old Grouch will chime in for you with another pointless rambling about John II. Then again, you do seem to have a fan in that anonymous coward moron.Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 01:09 AM
The n.y.times is at it again,This time printing a full page ad.from the biggest anti-american hate group lying to the American people.Unfortunately there are total idiots out there who will side with them,liberals and Al Qaeda.Posted by Keith on September 12, 2007 07:43 AM
"What's to stop a bigot from firing a black and hurting his own company?"
Nothing. The bigot has a right to make stupid business decisions.Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 07:44 AM
Its just too easy to be anti-republican, just print the news of what they are doing, no need to have a bias. The Craigs, the Foleys, the Vitters, the Haggards take care of presenting the wholesome Republican image. Bush and his thugs with each corrupt act make it easier. Posters like Keith and An American are driving more and more from the Party each day. Keep up the good work!Posted by Dwight on September 12, 2007 07:51 AM
dwight,obviously you down read the news,thats why you are a dumb-ass liberal.Go to Cheeseman Park,shane,joe,mac and the others are wainting for you.Bring your butt lube.Posted by Keith on September 12, 2007 08:05 AM
You made Dwight's point perfectly. The Republican Party has become the party of Bubba's and semi-literates.
The real problem with the RMN and the DP for Republicans is that it requires a sixth grade education to read them. You can't like what you can't understand.Posted by Wes on September 12, 2007 09:45 AM
The media is not anti-Republican.They are anti-American!! It is just that the Republicans represent what America stands for so the media will attack anyone that believes in the US.The reason they do not attack the Democrats in the same way is because the Democrats are also anti-American.It is just that simple!Posted by An American on September 12, 2007 11:16 AM
> It is just that simple
Simple is as simple does, clearly your specialty, along with displaying your impotence.Posted by on September 12, 2007 12:17 PM
" "What's to stop a bigot from firing a black and hurting his own company? Nothing. The bigot has a right to make stupid business decisions"
Thankfully we have laws giving the innocent black a way to be compensated for unjust firing because the bigot fired him because he is black and not for bad job performance. Who cares if he bigot hurt his business, the concern is who the bigot hurt directly because he was a racist bigot.Posted by CA on September 12, 2007 12:49 PM
"Who cares if he bigot hurt his business, the concern is who the bigot hurt directly because he was a racist bigot."
Firstly, there's no doubt that the "innocent black" was harmed by losing his job. The real question is: Should the employer be punished by the law? Should the government punish the employer for other bad decisions that hurts employees? Would the "innocent black" be harmed if the employer fired him simply because the employer was incompetent and didn't realize how valuable the black was? Should the government prosecute such an employer? If so, why? Should the government prosecute every unfortunate workplace incident?
Secondly, my larger point is that there is a built in disincentive to avoid making those poor race-based decisions. I gave examples last night of situations where racists valued their black employees/slaves more than their own racist views because of the desire for profit. Marge Schott employed black baseball players even though she was widely known to be a racist. Why did she do that? Because, in order to make a profit, she needed the best players she could afford regardless of race.
Thirdly, discrimination exists on many levels other than race and gender. Should we prosecute employers who refuse to hire red-headed people? What if an employer is a short guy and doesn't want any tall people in his company? Why should the government tell a private company how to manage it's employees?
In the end, market competition and the desire to make a profit forces most employers to hire and retain the best workers they can afford regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. And in situations where employers let their bigotry get in the way of rational business decisions, they only serve to reduce the competitiveness of their own company.
I realize my position is an easy one to side against. Racism is morally wrong and the temptation to appear morally superior is great. But, at least think about the arguments I have made before responding. Remember, my point is that the free market creates a disincentive for irrational business decisions.Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 01:31 PM
"...the free market creates a disincentive for irrational business decisions."
In a ideal world no businessman would make a bad decision to hurt his business. But we don't live in an ideal world. Businessmen act not just on making solid business decisions but also on their own prejudices and biases. If it can be shown that en employee was fired just because of those personal prejudices and bias the employer should be punished by making restitution to the the person wrongly fired - I don't care if he goes to jail or not - only that he fixes the damage he caused to the person he wronged by firing for prejudice.
Since they are still constantly filing suits against bigoted and prejudiced bosses and companies it is obvious that your disincentive concept can't fly on its own yet.
Maybe someday it will work when all the bigots and racists who try to get away with wrongful firings or wrongful not hirings are a thing of the past. Today we need the force of the law to encourage your so called disincentive.
If you don't like the laws, work to change them or obey them even if you are as high principled personally as you think all businessmen are.Posted by CA on September 12, 2007 01:49 PM
"In a ideal world no businessman would make a bad decision to hurt his business. But we don't live in an ideal world. Businessmen act not just on making solid business decisions but also on their own prejudices and biases."
Of course. So what? But, should such faulty decisions be made criminal?
"If it can be shown that en employee was fired just because of those personal prejudices and bias the employer should be punished by making restitution to the the person wrongly fired - I don't care if he goes to jail or not - only that he fixes the damage he caused to the person he wronged by firing for prejudice."
Why? This is the question I keep asking and no one answers. Why is it criminal? It is unfortunate for both sides but why is it criminal?
"Since they are still constantly filing suits against bigoted and prejudiced bosses and companies it is obvious that your disincentive concept can't fly on its own yet."
How do you know that the system is not being abused in this hyper-sensitive, politically correct age we live in? I once worked for a company that was sued because one of it's male employees had a swimsuit calendar hanging in his cubicle.
"Maybe someday it will work when all the bigots and racists who try to get away with wrongful firings or wrongful not hirings are a thing of the past. Today we need the force of the law to encourage your so called disincentive."
Why? Why does the government feel it necessary to tell a private company how to manage it's hiring/firing practices? If a company chooses to hire based on race, why should that concern the government?
"If you don't like the laws, work to change them or obey them even if you are as high principled personally as you think all businessmen are."
I never said businessmen are "high principled". I'm merely suggesting that the free market will punish bad business decisions.
So, you have made the case that because an innocent person is harmed by a poor business decision, that person should be compensated and the employer should be punished. And you seem to be saying poor business decisions in general should not be punished; only those decisions based on race and gender should be punished. Why is a race-based decision punishable but other harmful decisions are forgivable?
What if we reverse the roles? If a racist white man wishes to buy a hotdog for lunch from a street vendor, and he see's two vendors: one a black man, the other an attractive white women. The black man charges 50% less for his hotdogs yet the white man chooses to purchase from the attractive blond woman. The black man's business suffers from this race/gender based consumer decision. Should he be compensated by the government? Should the consumer be punished for his race/gender based decision? Why or why not?Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 02:22 PM
Face it, johnnie 2boy. Your just a closed minded racist bigot who while saying your not is just advocating the will and wishes of your buddies in the KKK and ayran race organizations. first darfor then ca pointed out why its considered wrong to hurt other people just because your a racist bigot, yet you defend being able to hurt people without consequence. whine and cry to your little bigoted hearts content you racist, you have to live by the laws until you have the stones to try and change them. Your attempts at intellectual arguments is just specious blatherings to cover you own bigoted views. Thank God your kind is a dying breed.Posted by on September 12, 2007 02:40 PM
What makes this argument that the media is anti-Republican funny is that it is so Republican to feel persecuted. From what I have observed a persecution complex must be one of the requirements of being a Republican. That along with a "winners" complex and being a hypocrite. You never hear a Republican say that Fox News is too biased to the right and needs to move more to the left to become more balanced. They always shout about how persecuted they are as a group but then when their side commits the identical travesty they sweep it under the rug and ignore their own transgressions. Like I said being a Republican means feeling persecuted all the time, believing that you are always a "winner" and behaving in the most hypocritical fashion when your politicians or media outlets commit the same "sins" that you scream the loudest about. I am thankful everyday that I didn't grow up in a persecuted environment so I didn't have to become a Republican.Posted by Wes on September 12, 2007 02:45 PM
This article accurately describes you, anonymous coward: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/harry_reid_the_end_of_liberal.html
You are an anonymous coward because you refuse to put a signature to your comments so no one can know if you are the same person making the same absurd arguments. You have no persona to defend. Everyone else must adhere to some sort of decorum because their psuedo-name is attached to their comments. Their comments are traceable to them. You, on the other hand, dwell in a safe world of anonymity, not quite responsible for the bizarre statements you make.
So, instead of referring to you as if I were conversing with a clock, I shall simply refer to you as the Anonymous Coward.Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 03:24 PM
And I shall continue to refer to you as the racist bigot who advocates ethnic pure workspace and the right to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Words to soothe yourself with...Posted by on September 12, 2007 03:51 PM
John II, I don't agree with much of your position on this thread, but I have to give you credit for provoking a pretty lively thread!
This whole exchange is basically questioning which is more effective at righting social injustices - the profit incentive that comes with capitalism, or applying government-mandated laws (and enforcing them)?
It's an interesting discussion, but I think the debate could last longer and yield more insight if both sides would hold off as long as possible before invoking the Constitutional component.
I almost don't know how to answer your meandering post which works to twist human values into something that is so narrow minded.
I guess my only response is to say that I'm proud of my sense of right and wrong, my moral grounding. You have a different sense of right and wrong and it's one I personally reject. I see fair play as being a 2 way street and you see it as a 1 way street.
In an idealistic world your self correcting concept might work. In the real world full of bigots and racists it won't work.
I'm fortunate that the modern society in the majority agrees with me that if someone is damaged by discrimination based on prejudices they should be compensated for the damage caused. I don't have to defend it because that position is not in jeopardy, if it was I guess I would work to defend it. But for now the ball's in your court if your don't agree with it. I'm happy with it as it is.
It's been "different" talking with somebody from your point of view. But I don't think I will be interested in doing it again. Thank you.Posted by CA on September 12, 2007 05:09 PM
You've made it quite clear that you believe racism is bad. And I agree with you. But, you've ignored almost all my questions to you. You have a decent sense of what's right and wrong, no question about it. But, my question is who should punish what you think is wrong, the government or the free market consequences of a bad business decision.
You have not even acknowledged my role reversal question. Should the racist consumer be prosecuted? Why or why not?
Again, human values are one thing; Law is quite another. Just because someone suffers from an unfortunate business practice does not mean that person is necessarily entitled to compensation by the government.
You don't need to agree with me, CA. All I'm asking is that you cogently explain your position. But, you've resorted to darfor's tactic of trying to shame me into agreeing with you with the argument that racism is bad because it's bad and all bad things should be punished by the law.
Do me a favor and review all my questions to you. I know I asked a lot of them but please answer at least a few. If anything, it will help you clarify your own position on the matter.Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 05:49 PM
After reading through this thread I have the sense that you've read a lot of Ayn Rand, or similar works. As a result of such study you are convinced that true free market capitalism will be continually self adjusting and ejecting or punishing any decisions made contrary to maximizing both efficiency and profitability of business. This would preclude any decisions by individuals at any level from exercising bad judgments contrary to efficiency; which would include by definition, any decisions based on prejudicial factors. Hence, your "disincentive for irrational business decisions."
I wish it were that simple and the world were comprised of only altruistic, well intentioned decision makers who were capable of putting aside any and all personal biases in the pursuit of absolute efficiency -- fair play and equal opportunity, would be axiomatic as all individuals would be evaluated strictly on their performance and contribution with no outside factors being considered.
However, since we haven't achieved the stage of human development where we have achieved such noble attributes universally, society has created laws to protect those who have historically been either shut out of, or denied access to, an equal opportunity to participate and prosper. While it may be intrusive to some by dictating certain restrictions pertaining to the hiring or firing of individuals by private businesses, it could be viewed as a price to pay in order to benefit by operating a business in our society.
Over time various legislatures have developed laws to protect the participation of those historically discriminated against due to characteristics beyond their control and having no relevance to their ability to perform in a positive manner in the workplace. Subsequently, various courts have upheld such protective laws as fitting within the framework of our Constitution.
And while I don't profess to understand all the legal and constitutional arguments pro or con the laws, I agree with CA above in being satisfied and happy the laws are in place to provide equal opportunity to participate in our society. If your looking for philosophical or constitutional debate substantiating such laws, it's too bad that my brother-in-law, known as Trinity on this forum, isn't available to debate you. His doctoral dissertation at Yale - which I'll admit I don't claim to fully understand - was written on the constitution and human rights in America.
If your debate is indeed based on advocating a true and open marketplace driven by efficiency and self regulating, I find it interesting, although view it as still in the concept stage of business evolution and human objectivity. If you're looking for a constitutional debate justifying what you view as intrusive government meddling where not constitutionally mandated, I wish you luck. I would be disappointed if your arguments were to be based on other factors.Posted by mongoose on September 12, 2007 06:03 PM
I'm not trying to shame you into anything. You're free to believe in what you want just as I am. I told you I don't have to justify my sense of fair play or my beliefs because they are not in jeopardy and I'm happy with them. You can accuse me all you want of being impractical and illogical, but that does'nt bother me either.
My position is stated and I stand by it. I don't agree with your position but I don't shame you for it. Your entitled to your views just like I'm entitled to mine.
If you want to try to shame me back into this discussion go for it, but I considered it ended. We'll just leave it that we disagree and move on with our lives.Posted by CA on September 12, 2007 06:30 PM
"I wish it were that simple and the world were comprised of only altruistic, well intentioned decision makers who were capable of putting aside any and all personal biases in the pursuit of absolute efficiency -- fair play and equal opportunity, would be axiomatic as all individuals would be evaluated strictly on their performance and contribution with no outside factors being considered."
Altruistic? Here's what Webster's says about the word altruistic:
"unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"
When did I ever suggest an employer's business decisions were devoted to the welfare of others? It's quite the opposite, my friend. It is selfish decisions that drive business. Again (and again and again), irrational business decisions are punished by the free market. Do you disagree with that statement? Why or why not?
"Over time various legislatures have developed laws to protect the participation of those historically discriminated against due to characteristics beyond their control and having no relevance to their ability to perform in a positive manner in the workplace."
Obviously. What I keep asking (and no one will answer) is why the government should be involved in the punishment of private matters. Of course, the "innocent black" was harmed in a bad business agreement. People are harmed by bad business deals everyday. Should we compensate everyone who feels slighted in a business deal?
"I told you I don't have to justify my sense of fair play or my beliefs because they are not in jeopardy and I'm happy with them."
Well, that's fine, CA. You jumped into the conversation. I did not pull you in. But, you chose not to answer any of my questions. So, all I get from you is that racism is bad because it's bad and bad things are bad therefore anyone suffering from bad things should be compensated by the government except when the bad thing has nothing to do with race or gender; in that case, the bad thing is forgivable because it doesn't outrage me as much as racism does. Everyone of your posts said something to that effect without acknowledging any of the questions posed to you. So, I am therefore left with the impression that your position is based solely on emotional reasoning and that you are afraid to defend it on non-emotional terms.Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 07:06 PM
Before this thread dies a cold, lonely death, let me add that a business depends upon the community it is in. That can be a neighborhood, town, country . When a business hires only those people the managers like for personal reasons, the community supports the business, but the returns to the community are funneled only to part of the area.
The South had this system, Blacks were not hired, money stayed in the White community and Blacks suffered but when war broke out who had to go to support all of us. Everyone.
A business can`t suck a society dry, though many try. If it took legislation, approved by the Supreme Court, to reverse this problem, and that brought prosperity to a greater part of society, then that is what business made happen.
They are reaping what they have sown.
Communities build roads, put in improvements, all pay for this, then the companies hire without discrimination and everyone benefits.
If not, then we the people step in and correct the problem.Posted by Sharon B. on September 12, 2007 08:48 PM
Good explanation of the dual responsibility of employer to employee and, employee to employer. I agree that we haven't grown up and matured as a society to trust people to be honest in their dealings with others. Unfortunately, we need government intervention to ensure that which should come as second nature -- equal opportunity to either succeed or fail based on performance, not prejudice.Posted by carl on September 12, 2007 09:01 PM
I don't care how fast you type, most of you need to get away from your computers and look for either work or hobbies. You are causing your brains to turn into marshmellows. You have been so busy, as usual, defending the indefensible, and meanwhile the day has gone by and you have managed to accomplish absolutely nothing. SO.... MAYBE I WAS WRONG: THERE ARE SO MANY SIMILARITIES BETWEEN YOU THAT IT IS BECOMING A BLINDING MESS.Posted by Sheila on September 12, 2007 09:50 PM
"I agree that we haven't grown up and matured as a society to trust people to be honest in their dealings with others."
Who said anything about being honest?Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 09:51 PM
Sorry, I wasn't around yesterday; so I couldn't deal with your usual parcel of lies. You make statements concerning my "hating" certain philosophical and political entities. And, as usual, you lie with each and every statement you make.
Indeed lying is so basic to all your presentations, that most of us who have experienced you on this website have come to refuse to deal with you; since there is no use in even attempting to deal with a congenital pathological liar.
In your closing posting, 09:51 PM yesterday the 12th, you ask: "Who said anything about being honest?"
A certain touch of irony there Johnny boy - especailly coming from someone such as you, who doesn't even know, much less understand - the simple dictionary definition of the word, "honest", to begin with.
From some of your postings I have more or less come to believe you are a practicing lawyer. You do present matters concerning the Constitution very much as such. And, as you are finding out, responses from John 2 - as with his original positions on the matter as well - bear no resemblance whatsoever to current practice.
I have often wished that - way back over 50 years ago now - we could have had John 2 in the Constitutional Law class I took, that was taught by a former Clerk for Mr. Justice Hugo Black. However . . . .
As I am sure you have found out, for John 2, the Constitution was "chiseled in stone" - much as the mythology book tells us was done with the Ten Commandments - by the Founding Fathers; and anyone who disagrees with this position is "bashing the Constitution". NOT, of course, "bashing" John 2, - and/or his closed and locked mind, which, for HIM, is the sole and only REAL source of Constitutional knowledge left today.
As the curator of "Chiseled In Stone Constitution Park", and its adjunct preserve of "Fossilized Rendition of the Founding Fathers", we must all remember that when John 2 speaks, that's IT. The rest of us only "hate" the Document itself.
And, when anyone offers any idea that would deal with any part of John 2's idea of absolutely unrestrained - and good old fashioned "Robber Baron" form of - capitalism, that person is, automatically, a "socialist", seeking to somehow "destroy America", since social legislation and "capitalism" are, for John 2, diametrically opposed, and inherently contradictory.
Which, taken together with John2's extremely limited knowledge of Christianity, and his idea that anything that expresses disagreement with, or possible information on alternatives to, his meager perception of that belief-system also constitutes "bashing"; and you have John 2 in a nutshell. Theme and Chorus, ONE - long, loud, sustained - NOTE, repeated, over and over, and over and . . . ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
On the whole, your experience has provided the web with much entertainment, in its way, as well as a good deal of sound and intelligent argument and information; and has been another good example of the futility of wasting time with the man.
Those of us who find this forum a wonderful opportunity to experience the marketplace of ideas welcome you, sir. And we hope you will forgive us your experience with one of those who are most prolific in cluttering up the marketplace with schlock, junk, and outmoded trash, rather than real thought, or ideas.
I look forward to reading you again; and, I send my best wishes to your confreres who recruited you to post here.Posted by Old Grouch on September 13, 2007 11:33 AM
Where did I lie? I said you bash Christianity. In your last post, you referred to the bible as a "mythology book". You also mention the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ every chance you get as if that meant something.
As for comments to darfor, can you tell me where darfor presented convincing Constitutional arguments? All he said was "equality clause" and "general welfare". That's it. And that's what passes for constitutional expertise in your eyes? That is pathetic. Equality concerns with how the law treats it's citizens, not how employers treat their employees. General welfare is a qualified term; it is not open-ended. The Constitution enumerates the powers permitted to provide for the general welfare. Otherwise, the authors of Constitution could have saved themselves a lot of writing by simply stating "The government shall do whatever it deems necessary to provide for whatever it feels applies under the general Welfare. Finis."
You can label my view concerning the Constitution as "chiseled in stone". But, why not explain to me which views you disagree with. Especially, the specific views I expressed on this thread.Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 12:02 PM
Poor johnnie 2 boy. The world knows you as the racist bigot who advocates ethnic pure workspace and the right to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Your whining and crying about others fairly strong logic and arguments being unresponsive is because you argue from a nonsensical and whimsical side. You built specious, none applicable arguments and present them as intellectual and indefatigable -- they are constantly blown away and your the only smuck reading this thread who doesn't realize it.
We need to modify your description to: the dense narrow minded racist bigot who advocates ethnic pure workspace and the right to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
You got your bigoted ass spanked so much on the thread you won't be able to sit for a week -- probably won't be able to think, at your infantile level either as your logic and arguments seem to come of the same place.
Hang in there johnni2 2boy because we all need a good laugh and you oblige...Posted by on September 13, 2007 02:10 PM
From your posting of 9/11/ @04:12 PM, concerning "Old Grouch, Charles B, and Sharon B.":
:ie # 1. "They hate capitalism".
Lie #2. They bash Christinaity every chance they get, etc . . . .
Lie #3. "Old Grouch says it's (The Constitution) an old document that needs to be reinterpreted."
1. I have never expressed hate for capitalism in any posting on the web. I have disagreed with your idea that social legislation and capitalism are necessarily inherently contradictory - as given in your example of "standing in water and being burned by fire". That's disagreement with stupidity, not "hate".
2. I do call parts of the Bible a Mythology Book. It is. The larger part of the Old Testament is merely the written transcription of folk tales, and oral myths, concerning what happened way back when, "in the Garden of Eden" and "during the flood", etc., etc. I am a Christian; and I have said before, my Theology is Orthodox. Orthodoxy gathered together those manuscripts - including the Septuagint version of the Old Testament - that were found to be in conformity with the Tradition of the Church, and therefore were declared the Canon of Scripture for the purposes of reading during Leiturgos - public worship. At NO TIME, and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, did the Church indicate that any one, or all, this collection was either a science text or some kind of "dictated", or "personally revealed", work of God. And, Orthodox Christians are under no obligation to consider the Bible to be such today.
I openly deride, and disagree with, those bibliolaters who, calling themselves,"christian" seek to make the Bible into some kind of text-book on matters COMPLETELY OUTSIDE the area of religion, and not at all a part of Christian Theology. I call Protestantism the Je$u$ Bu$iness as a matter of fact. It is just that, the business of making religion up as the individual goes along, and inventing "theology", as well as laws, rules, and regulations, to suit.
You may call it bashing. But, it is NOT "bashing Christianity".
I refer to the Constitution as a LIVING DOCUMENT, with its own current interpretations as to be found in the Courts, and as applicable within the whole of legal process. You're the one who looks upon it as being, somehow, chiseled in stone, as an "old document" that cannot be interpreted any other way than your own. YOUR claim that programs are "extra-Constitutional" rests on nothing more than your own insistence that such exist, because they don't conform to your ideas.
You obviously know nothing about, in, or of the Law as such; and it is both pointless and useless to discuss a matter of Constitutional Law with total ignorance, such as you display. As "darfor" and others have told you, and your equally ignorant followers: If you disagree with today's interpretations of the Living Constitution, you have both the method and means of making that known in a Court; and trying to overturn, or undo, the interpretation, or ruling. Failing to do so when and where it is possible, together with blathering about "revolution in the streets", and such like idiotic nonsense, does nothing to establish, or prove, the positions you have taken concerning any part or all of your claims about the Constitution, and/or subsequent Legislation thereunder; nor do any nor all your purely rhetorical questions in that, or any other area.
To close: You project your own fantasies as if they were the faults of others, and you do so very deliberately. As the old saying goes: "False in part, false in all". Which sums it up.
You're dismissed. Go tell your Mommy she needs you.Posted by Old Grouch on September 13, 2007 03:21 PM
johnnie 2 2 boy...johnnie tutu boy gets righteously spanked again..Too bad he such dense smuck he doesn't realize how untenable his positions are. However, to demonstrate continuity in life, he remains the dense narrow minded racist bigot who advocates ethnic pure workspace and the right to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, race, color, religion, sex or national origin.Posted by on September 13, 2007 03:40 PM
Here's an enumeration of the arguments made against my position:
1) I'm racist
2) I'm a bigot
3) I advocate an ethnically pure workspace
4) Somewhere, there's an "equality clause" that says an employer cannot hire whoever he/she wants. This "equality clause" was not referenced.
5) The words "general Welfare" exist in the Constitution, therefore the government has the right to dictate to an employer how to run his business.
6) Racism is bad and bad things are bad because they're bad and the government should abolish all bad things, but only when the bad thing has something to do with bad business decisions regarding bad views on race and gender.
7) Employers are not altruistic nor highly principled therefore....I'm not even sure what the point was.
Discrimination will always exist. Otherwise, we could get a job just by having an employer randomly pick our names from a hat.
We have the freedom to be a jerk in this country. We have the freedom to ruin our private business based on our own faulty decisions. Why should a private business be told by the government who it can and can't fire or hire?
The business that turns down the best qualified job candidate because of race has just hurt itself and it's competitiveness. It is free to do this. A competing company who hires this candidate has just increased it's value. In other words, on a macro level, the free market will correct itself and make sure all qualified workers are employed.
What if we reverse the roles? If a racist white man wishes to buy a hotdog for lunch from a street vendor, and he see's two vendors: one a black man, the other an attractive white women. The black man charges 50% less for his hotdogs yet the white man chooses to purchase from the attractive blond woman. The black man's business suffers from this race/gender based consumer decision. Should he be compensated by the government? Should the consumer be punished for his race/gender based decision? Why or why not? Did the consumer suffer a loss of money due to his bad consumer decision?Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 03:52 PM
Old Grouch said:
"If you disagree with today's interpretations of the Living Constitution, you have both the method and means of making that known in a Court; and trying to overturn, or undo, the interpretation, or ruling."
Do you have any idea how absurd that statement is? The purpose of a constitution is to define a set of laws that the government and citizens will adhere to. What is the point of having a constitution if whichever party happens to be in power gets to "interpret" those rules however it see's fit? Answer that question.
Your concept of a "Living Constitution" reminds me of the book Animal Farm. The pigs kept altering the rules to whatever they wanted so, in the end, the rules were much different than the original. At least the pigs altered the rules in writing. The Constitution allows for amendments. But, you don't even want that. You just want whatever is written to be reinterpreted to mean whatever you're in favor of.
You still have not told me specifically what it is you disagree with other than saying I view the Constitution as chiseled in stone.Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 04:14 PM