RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matt,I should not have commented that what you said was stupid. What I had meant to say was that all of the examples you give are of people being unaccommodating, not discriminatory. The owners of the apartments you lived in were unaccommodating of people who drink alcohol by not allowing it on their property. However, it’s not discriminatory unless they don’t allow people who drink alcohol to rent their property. Paizo not offering products parents would find suitable for their small children is not discriminatory unless they prohibit parents with small children from buying their products. A big and tall store doesn’t carry clothing that a short, skinny person would typically wear, but simply because the store isn’t catering to the person’s needs isn’t the same as banning anyone under 4’ tall from their store.
Apology accepted. I shouldn't have been quite so snarky, life's been a roller coaster in the past two months, and you may have been clipped by that.
And my analogy isn't perfect, I know. But I'd not want to be in any place where my friends aren't wanted. That's me though. The place where I lived did impose rules based on their belief system. If I'd wanted to have a bottle of wine in my house (like I do now) I'd have lived somewhere else, but I'd not complain that my rights were violated. I think the hard question is when one person's rights conflict with another. Do I have the right to use my property to rent to only, say, left handers? Do I have the right to deny someone access to my property? You have a right to rent, just like any other person, but does your right to enter into a contract trump my right to not enter it.
If we allow 'some discrimination' (ala Curves, or the scouts) where do we draw the line?
Ramesh Ponnuru has some thoughts on the subject, while his compatriot Rich Lowry disagrees.
sanctimonious sentence that fails to address the issue.
Who "threw it around"?
I've never used that word here save now, yet when someone links to a national story "about" bigotry and discrimination (whether accurately reported or otherwise) and accuses an entire state of being in the same camp as the guy in the story, some "Mighter than Thou" and his allies come chasing me?
My beef is no longer with the OP; he explained himself in a later post. My beef is with your kind of asinine, righteous dismissiveness.
I don't know how you interpreted that the way you did. Instead of explaining it to you just read what Celestial Healer wrote.
|
What I was pointing out is: Tranquilis stated that another poster spoke out against bigotry and then made a statement viewed by Tranquilis as bigoted, which he pointed out. Garydee stated that he finds that people who complain about bigotry often then exhibit it themselves in other ways, a reference to the poster Tranquilis was responding to, not to Tranquilis himself. I don't necessarily agree with any of their assessments, but pointed out that Tranquilis' ire against Garydee was entirely misplaced.
Now I'm offended. Where does he get off calling me a bigot?!
Not in NY. In Texas....trying to get my gaming juices flowing again after a few years of floundering about. Stuck with 3.5. Pathfinder is great, but just couldn't keep up with it. No 4th edition for me, but I will try it some day.
The death of the paper magazines still haunts me.
Sorry for the threadjack:
(INSERT RANDOM SNARKY POLITICAL STATEMENT HERE)
|
Not in NY. In Texas....trying to get my gaming juices flowing again after a few years of floundering about. Stuck with 3.5. Pathfinder is great, but just couldn't keep up with it. No 4th edition for me, but I will try it some day.
The death of the paper magazines still haunts me.
Sorry for the threadjack:
(INSERT RANDOM SNARKY POLITICAL STATEMENT HERE)
Oh, so now you're trying to turn this into an edition flamewar! Keep your trolling elsewhere, sir!
Also, which one of you bastards already stole the alias "Threadjack Police?" I wanted to start crying about this thread going off topic, and I can't do that effectively without the proper mocking alias.
You can be "Threadjack Gestapo"... that even carries an implied Godwin.
Lurking post
And my analogy isn't perfect, I know. But I'd not want to be in any place where my friends aren't wanted. That's me though. The place where I lived did impose rules based on their belief system. If I'd wanted to have a bottle of wine in my house (like I do now) I'd have lived somewhere else, but I'd not complain that my rights were violated.
Right, because your rights weren’t violated, so long as you knew about this condition before signing a lease of course. It’s the same with an apartment complex not allowing pets, really the reasons are probably the same. Both can cause a mess. It’s not discriminatory to not allow pets in your apartment complex. It is discriminatory to ask someone applying for an apartment if they like dogs, and then refusing to let them rent depending on their answer.
I think the hard question is when one person's rights conflict with another. Do I have the right to use my property to rent to only, say, left handers?
Not in my mind, no.
Do I have the right to deny someone access to my property?
Yes. Unless of course your property is a place of business, in which case you can’t deny access to someone based on their gender, looks or beliefs.
If we allow 'some discrimination' (ala Curves, or the scouts) where do we draw the line?
The Scouts are not a business, so they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I see no problem with Curves saying that they are for women. Women and men are different physically, and we generally look for different things when it comes to exercise. It is not discriminatory for Curves to offer equipment and exercise programs geared towards women only, it’s just not accommodating to men. However, should a man want to join the gym knowing full well that everything there is geared towards women then yeah, they have to let him join. Of course I’m sure a reason Curves wants to be women only is to avoid men who use the gym as a pick up spot, and there’s nothing to stop them from implementing a no flirting policy and kicking out any guy who breaks it.
Not in NY. In Texas....trying to get my gaming juices flowing again after a few years of floundering about. Stuck with 3.5. Pathfinder is great, but just couldn't keep up with it. No 4th edition for me, but I will try it some day.
The death of the paper magazines still haunts me.
Sorry for the threadjack:
(INSERT RANDOM SNARKY POLITICAL STATEMENT HERE)
Ah, finally something important and relevant. Where in Texas?
My beef is no longer with the OP; he explained himself in a later post. My beef is with your kind of asinine, righteous dismissiveness.
Two things:
1. Way to fail at reading comprehension.
2. This is what an asinine, righteous, dismissive post looks like.
Technically, equine?
|
|
Sigh....is nothing safe from politics any more?
I bought some new dice. My PBP game is going well. I get to play D&D tomorrow in my friend's Ptolus campaign.
Dude! You're gone/irregular posting for ages, and when you do return, you show up in a politics thread?!?!?
FAWTLY Towers, old man, that's where you belong. Not here. Come have a virtual drink with the old crew and give us an update. I've been thinking of making a "Old timers you miss on Paizo thread" and you would've been near the top of the list.
Yes, stop by Fawtly Towers. We have a great time there.
And,since you are in a Ptolus game [shameless promotion] go visit the Workshop of the Clockwork Gnome. Maybe you will find something you can use. ;)[/shameless promotion]
|
|
We tried, we really did try! But the most native american we get in our group is someone who is less than 5%, and the one indian dude we did try to get playing with us ended up being quite insane.Why not? What do you have against them? Damned, Archie Bunker wannabe you.Will you have a diverse, racially-balanced group of players?I'm in several that are diverse to the point of hilarity. The only races that are not represented are Indians and full-blooded Native Americans.
So you are saying all Indian people are insane. I knew it! ;)
Gods yes, that was a joke. Don't hurt me! :)
By the way, Freehold, I did see your thing about maps for Wune. I will answer that in the Fawtly Towers thread.
Should a private company be forced to provide services that they don't wish to?
No
Just want to go ahead and point out that California threw the case out. Jersey messed that one up.
|
The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.
Ok, segregation didn't work, in fact it totally exploded. Secondly job discrimination is still DISCRIMINATION. Not hiring someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexuality, is just plain wrong, racist, evil, and idiotic. Thank f*!$ing god I live in a country that made laws to prevent this BS.
The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.Ok, segregation didn't work, in fact it totally exploded. Secondly job discrimination is still DISCRIMINATION. Not hiring someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexuality, is just plain wrong, racist, evil, and idiotic. Thank f#&*ing god I live in a country that made laws to prevent this BS.
Hooters must be really fun to go to there I imagine.
|
|
Hooters must be really fun to go to there I imagine.The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.Ok, segregation didn't work, in fact it totally exploded. Secondly job discrimination is still DISCRIMINATION. Not hiring someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexuality, is just plain wrong, racist, evil, and idiotic. Thank f#&*ing god I live in a country that made laws to prevent this BS.
I wouldn't know but obviously as a gay man I haven't attended because I dislike the ambience.
|
|
Hooters must be really fun to go to there I imagine.The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.Ok, segregation didn't work, in fact it totally exploded. Secondly job discrimination is still DISCRIMINATION. Not hiring someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexuality, is just plain wrong, racist, evil, and idiotic. Thank f#&*ing god I live in a country that made laws to prevent this BS.
Hooters in the US has already been made to hire a male waiter...they just made him wear the same uniform lol.
Hooters in the US has already been made to hire a male waiter...they just made him wear the same uniform lol.Hooters must be really fun to go to there I imagine.The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.Ok, segregation didn't work, in fact it totally exploded. Secondly job discrimination is still DISCRIMINATION. Not hiring someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexuality, is just plain wrong, racist, evil, and idiotic. Thank f#&*ing god I live in a country that made laws to prevent this BS.
lol.
Though seriously, they didn't, they just had to create other jobs that were not gender specific (hosts, bartenders, etc).
|
|
Though seriously, they didn't, they just had to create other jobs that were not gender specific (hosts, bartenders, etc).
It's been awhile since I read the story so I could be wrong, but I could have sworn that the courts ruled they couldn't not hire the man. Hooters solution to this was to simply enforce the dress code to which they hold all their servers.
I am not gonna read this whole thread, but sadly my state if full of idiots that are "Good upstanding god fearing Christians" who often give a bad name to such. Also they tend to buy the conservative bull hook line and sinker. If your not white, christian and straight..somethings wrong with you. And they love the lines "I don't have nothing aginest em, but it an't righ>' which is all you need to bagger and discriminate in the name of good and decent god fearing folks.
|
|
I am not gonna read this whole thread, but sadly my state if full of idiots that are "Good upstanding god fearing Christians" who often give a bad name to such. Also they tend to buy the conservative bull hook line and sinker. If your not white, christian and straight..somethings wrong with you. And they love the lines "I don't have nothing aginest em, but it an't righ>' which is all you need to bagger and discriminate in the name of good and decent god fearing folks.
My favorite BS line is "love the sinner, hate the sin" /shakeshead
Yeah, I don't really fit in with most folks around here. I just want to scream at some comments my family and folks I know says then go"Well noting meant by it, but it's wrong"
sigh.......
|
|
Yeah, I don't really fit in with most folks around here. I just want to scream at some comments my family and folks I know says then go"Well noting meant by it, but it's wrong"
sigh.......
Ah, gotta love those disclaimers:
With all due respect...
...bless his/her heart.
Nothing meant by it...
etc.
etc.
All of em inevitably follow or lead into something bad
|
|
He wont shut up! He keeps turning himself into a male Palin!
Speaking of Palin, I hope she runs for Pres in 2012. It would be the best thing that could possible happen for Dems.
Oh, wait.....sorry, that's Washington D.C.
No victor charlies for thousands of miles.
My favorite political commentators have indicated that this is a negative effect of the Tea Party movement. Namely, in an effort to get rid of incumbents, untried and untested candidates will be put up for election.
He was naive to go on Rachel Maddow's show expecting fair treatment. He was naive to think that anything he said wouldn't be twisted and perverted to make him appear as a bigot. And now he gets to go up against the Democrat Machine.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did a great many good things, and it has been perverted in the years since its passage. Rand was a nitwit when he took the bait, and he deserves the flogging he's going to get.
There's still a type of Libertarian who wants to fight the sort of battle Rand wants to fight, and I can understand his point. But this is one of the reasons Libertarians don't often get elected to national office.
Still, it's kinda funny that the Congressional Black Caucus won't allow anyone but people deemed "black." Meanwhile, Charlize Theron, who became a US citizen in 2007 but was born in South Africa, isn't considered an "African-American."
|
He wont shut up! He keeps turning himself into a male Palin!Speaking of Palin, I hope she runs for Pres in 2012. It would be the best thing that could possible happen for Dems.
Yeah I know :/
Hey, if Barack Hussein Obama can get elected after saying this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA
then I think Rand Paul should get the same benefit.
Oh, wait. The rules are different for Democrats.
Compare the amount of time Obama gets on the BP oil spill to how quickly Bush was tarred ad feathered over Katrina, largely because the Democratic mayer of Naw'iins was f&@&ing incompetent.
Somewhere out there, there's also a lovely comparison of the pre-edit transcript of Charlie Rose's interview with Palin and the transcript of what went out over the air.
The questions and answers were not aired in the same order. In one case, there was even a place where they mixed and matched question and answer (question A, answer A, question B, answer B) and aired question A, answer B, because answer B, while tangentially related, makes the answerer look like someone with an IQ smaller than their shoe size.
Choosing what gets reported - and how it gets slung - is more important than any position a candidate may have.
At least he's being honest about his ratf@@%ery.
Oh, wait. The rules are different for Democrats.
|
|
Yeah I know :/He wont shut up! He keeps turning himself into a male Palin!Speaking of Palin, I hope she runs for Pres in 2012. It would be the best thing that could possible happen for Dems.
Cheer up CJ while I may not like the republican agenda most of the time. They would have to be completely idiotic to put Palin up for their candidate in 2012. Their best bet is to go with a moderate someone not in the media spotlight.
|
|
Cheer up CJ while I may not like the republican agenda most of the time. They would have to be completely idiotic to put Palin up for their candidate in 2012. Their best bet is to go with a moderate someone not in the media spotlight.Yeah I know :/He wont shut up! He keeps turning himself into a male Palin!Speaking of Palin, I hope she runs for Pres in 2012. It would be the best thing that could possible happen for Dems.
The problem is that there are so few moderates anymore. Regardless of the party. The media makes it worse.
Choosing what gets reported - and how it gets slung - is more important than any position a candidate may have.
The media is only as liberal as the corporations that own them.
The corporations are only as liberal as the shareholders who control them.
Who owns your favorite media corp?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There's still a type of Libertarian who wants to fight the sort of battle Rand wants to fight, and I can understand his point. But this is one of the reasons Libertarians don't often get elected to national office.
Another reason might be that they present their views in open forums, and the majority of American voters disagree with their platform.
Still, it's kinda funny that the Congressional Black Caucus won't allow anyone but people deemed "black." Meanwhile, Charlize Theron, who became a US citizen in 2007 but was born in South Africa, isn't considered an "African-American."
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you talking about a racial designation? "Black" is a race. Do you take odds with the idea of congressional caucuses in general? Because I don't see anything remarkable at all about the Women's Caucus restricting itself to women, or the Black Caucus restricting itself to blacks.
Regarding Ms.Theron: I'm going to presume you're suffering from legitimate confusion. For various reasons, that race designated "black" is often referred to as "African-American". Like "Semitic" for Jewish, or "Native American" for pre-Columbian tribes, it's a useful term that's generally correct. But look: I'm of Germanic heritage, and I self-identify as Caucasian. If my parents flew to Japan, gave birth to me on Japanese soil, and then flew back to the United States, that wouldn't change my race. I'd still be Caucasian, not Asian-American. Likewise, Ms. Theron's "mother is of German descent and her father was of French and Dutch ancestry". She was born in South Africa, but that doesn't change her race.
Having said that, I assure you that, if she were to declare herself "African-American" on the U.S. Census, she would be enumerated as such. When you say she "isn't considered" African-American, I have to ask: by whom, and for what purpose?
|
|
Hey, if Barack Hussein Obama can get elected after saying this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA
then I think Rand Paul should get the same benefit.
Oh, wait. The rules are different for Democrats.
Compare the amount of time Obama gets on the BP oil spill to how quickly Bush was tarred ad feathered over Katrina, largely because the Democratic mayer of Naw'iins was f@*%ing incompetent.
Somewhere out there, there's also a lovely comparison of the pre-edit transcript of Charlie Rose's interview with Palin and the transcript of what went out over the air.
The questions and answers were not aired in the same order. In one case, there was even a place where they mixed and matched question and answer (question A, answer A, question B, answer B) and aired question A, answer B, because answer B, while tangentially related, makes the answerer look like someone with an IQ smaller than their shoe size.
Choosing what gets reported - and how it gets slung - is more important than any position a candidate may have.
Very interesting Ad Astra.
Of course, there's a couple of FACTS you may want to research:
Oil Spill - The BP Oil Drilling station was located in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. So, there was no US Government oversite.
Hurricane Katrina - The crisis surrounding Katrina was that US Government-built levies failed to do what they were designed to do.
Oil Spill - This was a man-made disaster, created by greed and disregard for the environment.
Hurricane Katrina - Natural disaster, caused by nature.
Oil Spill - Has Obama's reaction on the crisis been lackluster? I have to say yes. But, again, he's dealing with a disaster caused by an International company that was not operating on US soil, but has directly affected the lives of many Americans. The only thing he could've done differently would have been to send in the military to take over the entire operation. However, considering the International implications (they are BRITISH Petroleum, after all), he has as much say in how they operate as the President of France can tell Wal-mart what they can sell.
Hurricane Katrina - The biggest fault of Bush & Hurricane Katrina was the fact that after the hurricane hit, it took over a WEEK for National Guard units to deploy after landfall. A WEEK. Was this Bush's personal flaw? No, it wasn't. He did everything he could to get relief to them as soon as possible. But, due to most of the National Guard being in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the fuel crisis at the time (both of which can be attributed to Bush's policies), he does take a lion's share of the blame.
Very interesting Ad Astra.
Of course, there's a couple of FACTS you may want to research:
Oil Spill - The BP Oil Drilling station was located in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. So, there was no US Government oversite.
Quite incorrect.
From Wikipedia:
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, or the Macondo blowout)[3][4][5] is a massive ongoing oil spill stemming from a sea floor oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill started with an oil well blowout on April 20, 2010 which caused a catastrophic explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil drilling platform that was situated about 40 miles (64 km) southeast of the Louisiana coast.
International waters start at 200 nautical miles. Territorial waters start at 12 nautical miles; liability and the ability to regulate extend up to the International Waters line.
The BP oil extraction facility is on a lease provided by the Federal Government. The Federal Government has DIRECT oversight over it.
Hurricane Katrina - The crisis surrounding Katrina was that US Government-built levies failed to do what they were designed to do.
Again, incorrect.
From the Federal Hearings on this issue:
With the exception of four foundation design failures, all of the major breaches were caused by overtopping and subsequent erosion. Reduced protective elevations increased the amount of overtopping, erosion, and subsequent flooding flooding, particularly in Orleans East. Ironically, the structures that ultimately breached performed as designed, providing protection until overtopping occurred and then becoming vulnerable to catastrophic breaching. The levee-floodwall designs for the 17th Street and London Avenue Outfall Canals and IHNC were inadequate for the complex and challenging environment. In four cases the structures failed catastrophically prior to water reaching design elevations. A significant number of structures that were subjected to water levels beyond their design limits performed well. Typically, in the case of floodwalls, they represented more conservative design assumptions and, for levees, use of higher quality, less erodible materials.
Or, if you don't speak engineer, "The designs worked as intended. They were never intended to face a Category 5 Hurricane."
The major issues in Katrina were the HORRIBLY run evacuation.
Oil Spill - This was a man-made disaster, created by greed and disregard for the environment.
Hurricane Katrina - Natural disaster, caused by nature.
Oil spill: The failure of a multiply redundant engineering system, that took somewhere between 11 and 30 lives, in an area where the Feds have complete oversight.
Hurricane: Formed on August 23rd. Hit landfall on August 29th. Mayor Nagin initiated evacuation procedures on the 27th...aside from, oh, using all the resources (school and metro busses) to assist in evacuation.
Oil Spill - Has Obama's reaction on the crisis been lackluster? I have to say yes. But, again, he's dealing with a disaster caused by an International company that was not operating on US soil, but has directly affected the lives of many Americans. The only thing he could've done differently would have been to send in the military to take over the entire operation. However, considering the Internationalmplications (they are BRITISH Petroleum, after all), he has as much say in how they operate as the President of France can tell Wal-mart what they can sell.
It's not Obama's reaction I'm critiquing. It's how it's being covered. Why isn't Obama being castigated for being in bed with Big Oil? (His political campaign took more money from oil companies than McCain's did. - 1.2 million versus 0.8 million) Obama has more unfettered authority in the EEZ than Bush did in Louisiana.
Hurricane Katrina - The biggest fault of Bush & Hurricane Katrina was the fact that after the hurricane hit, it took over a WEEK for National Guard units to deploy after landfall. A WEEK. Was this Bush's personal flaw? No, it wasn't. He did everything he could to get relief to them as soon as possible. But, due to most of the National Guard being in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the fuel crisis at the time (both of which can be attributed to Bush's policies), he does take a lion's share of the blame.
History homework: Study the old Civil Defense Brigade system, including which party in power decided to dismantle it and Federalize it as FEMA. There used to be a strong, decentralized organization dedicated to disaster relief with local assets. Calling up the Reserves used to be something the local Governor did if the Civil Defense Authority couldn't cut it.
Again, my contention is: "Where are the howls of protest?" Bush was being called (and not without justification) everything short of an incompetent f!$~wit by September 5th. Why does Obama get a longer grace period?
If you could cite that, it would be nice, m'man.
Somewhere out there, there's also a lovely comparison of the pre-edit transcript of Charlie Rose's interview with Palin and the transcript of what went out over the air.
I misremembered: It was Charlie Gibson.
Also Katie Couric:
Here's a PDF of the Couric interview - which is less egregious in its editing:
http://conservatives4palin.googlegroups.com/web/C4P+Transcript+of+Second+Da y+of+Couric+Interview.pdf?gda=Hlgh-HQAAAA787CdXMBQX6IpX7W-l2Yhbs5Bm1dwocw-C LC3IhTFfiOUTVP3KQKmfJSvZOyK6vMgyjzp16bRjYVTxt9ULDyl6cR3TjiQSrHbE45pcBhHf6-i RM3qWfn120OVEGkRCnVV6u9SiETdg0Q2ffAyHU-dzc4BZkLnSFWX59nr5BxGqA
Note that the commentary in brackets is from one of Palin's 'political visibility' organizations.
The Charlie Gibson interview:
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/09/the-un-edited-g.html
(Yes, the source is - surprise - another part of the Vast Right Wing Blogosphere Conspiracy.)
I know that every interview is edited down for televisionl. I know how it's done; I'm even part of the process for some types of technology related journalism. Nothing in these interviews is *quite* outside the boundaries of acceptable practice; they can always claim the needs to cut for time...but the difference between the unedited transcripts with Palin and Obama are illustrative.
Another reason might be that they present their views in open forums, and the majority of American voters disagree with their platform.
Still, it's kinda funny that the Congressional Black Caucus won't allow anyone but people deemed "black." Meanwhile, Charlize Theron, who became a US citizen in 2007 but was born in South Africa, isn't considered an "African-American."I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you talking about a racial designation? "Black" is a race. Do you take odds with the idea of congressional caucuses in general? Because I don't see anything remarkable at all about the Women's Caucus restricting itself to women, or the Black Caucus restricting itself to blacks.
Regarding Ms.Theron: I'm going to presume you're suffering from legitimate confusion.
Yes, that's what I said about Libertarians.
Bob Barr wasn't always a Libertarian. He was once a very conservative Republican, and as a memeber of Congress voted in that vein.. He has become a Libertarian in recent years. I don't see the issue you seem to have with him.
"Black" is not a race. Black is a color. And I don't take issue with congressional caucuses. However, the Congressional Black Caucus does not allow non-black members of Congress to join. Given that they decry even the hint of segragation (often when segragation isn't present), that makes them hypocrites. Let's set up a group that is allowed to exclude people based on the color of their skin . . . see the problem? Is there a special caucus for white people? Are there special issues that white people have that require such a caucus? Would that caucus be allowed to deny membership to a black congressman?
Ms. Theron is a legitimate African-American. She was actually born in Africa, was a citizen of an African nation. She is more African than many "blacks" who currently use the designation.
I am an American of Dutch-Scottish heritage, and I self-identify as an American. What's your point?
|
|
<snip>Lots of Stuff</snip>
I apologize, I misread the information on the location of the drilling platform.
In all honesty, I never really 'blamed' Katrina on Bush, just the fact that the response was 'underwhelming' from his team. Which Obama is guilty of as well. Unfortunately, both of these situations were/are being used to depict the president as incompetent for a situation that is, quite literally, beyond their control. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it's always easier to see where the flaws are in the system are after an event that breaks the system.